Biblical Proportions

Revelation: Apocalypse II

2011-07-08T21:00:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the second exciting installment of the Apocalypse quartet, brought to you by Peter & Paul Lalonde and the gang at Cloud Ten Pictures. This is that rare case of a sequel being better than the parent film. Sadly, in this case, that's like saying an unwashed pair of gym socks smells slightly better than an outhouse in summer.

I do have to give the Lalondes a bit of credit, though. This isn't an everyday sequel that focuses solely on returning characters. Leigh Lewis returns as Helen Hannah, but her character merely plays a supporting role here. Nevertheless, the film does take place after the events of the first Apocalypse, including the Rapture.

Instead, this film focuses on Earl Stone (Jeff Fahey), an officer of the One Nation Earth (O.N.E.) police force. At first I thought his name was Phil, then it sounded like Earl, and then the end credits revealed his name to be Thorold. I'm going to stick with Earl. So there. Earl figured "we don't need church to make us a family," making it clear which side of the Rapture coin he was on. When the Rapture came and took his wife and kid, poor Earl was LEFT BEHIND.

Worse, Earl is stuck living in a world ruled by Franco Macaluso (Nick Mancuso, taking over the role from Sam Bornstein), the dude who says he's a god but is really the AntiChrist. Everyone else believes Macaluso's claims of godhood, even Earl's partner (whose name I didn't catch, so I'll call him Bud), but Earl himself thinks this self-proclaimed messiah is a con man. You see, Earl stopped believing in anything after his mom died of cancer.

When a school bus blows up, Earl and Bud investigate and find evidence that leads them to a Haters' hideout (Haters being the post-Rapture term for Christians). The Haters claim they were set up. Bud is about to go all G20 on their asses, but Earl steps in and stops him. One wild-eyed Hater named Selma Davis hands Earl a secret disk, which turns out to be this movie's McGuffin.

Earl and Bud keep searching the area, and catch two of the AntiChrist's troopers red-handed with a bomb detonator. One of those troopers is none other than the villainous Len Parker, once again 'played' by David Roddis. Parker shoots Bud and Earl, then leaves by walking straight through a wall like a ghost (when did he get that power? He didn't have it in the last movie). Bud dies, but Earl Stone survives.

Earl finds help in the form of wheelchair-bound nerd Willie Spinno, who takes one look at the detonator used to destroy the school bus and declares it to be the work of O.N.E.. He also talks about how he designed a virtual reality program for an upcoming event called the Day of Wonders. He takes particular interest in the secret disk, and recognizes it to be related to the VR program. To crack it, and to keep Earl safe, Willie takes him to the super secret hideout of his stepsister. Who just happens to be recurring Apocalypse hero Helen Hannah! She runs the resistance with two friends: a fat guy whose name I didn't catch, and a blind woman named Cindy.

Meanwhile, all is not well at villain HQ. Sure, there are lots of dastardly deeds going on - we see a man turn his son in to the O.N.E. police because he caught him praying - but Parker isn't satisfied. It turns out the secret disk contains stuff that could throw a medium-sized wrench into the AntiChrist's Day of Wonders plan. Parker learns that Earl Stone is still alive, and that he has that very disk in his possession! "I want Stone," Parker says, "and I want him dead." Having gotten that out of his system, Parker has a go at Selma the wild-eyed Christian, trying to make her renounce Jesus. It's a tough job, being the AntiChrist's stooge. Gotta blow off a little steam somehow.

Back at 'Hater' HQ, Willie and Earl work hard to crack the secrets of the Secret Disk while Helen Hannah does her absolute best to annoy everyone around her. She was an insufferable know-it-all in the first movie, but she takes it up a notch or twelve here. She's got a comeback for anything: "Whatever it takes, I'm gonna find 'em," Earl says, referring to his need to find his family, to which Helen retorts "You'll have to find God first." Earl mentions he doesn't believe in God. "He's still God," Helen replies, "whether you believe in him or not." In fact, when both Earl and Willie express their preference for Atheism, Helen settles for "You're wrong. You're both wrong."

My absolute favourite? "Leave this to the professionals," Willie tells her, referring to his ability to crack the Secret Disk. "Professionals built the Titanic," Helen scolds in reply. "Amateurs built the Ark." I cannot imagine an eternity in flames being much worse than five minutes alone with her!

In spite of Helen's idiotic bon-mots, Willie eventually does crack the disk. It contains a virtual reality program, an empty white space one sees if one puts on a VR helmet. Further hacking reveals a 'line of code' that makes the blank space more interesting. Willie finds a guillotine, and cuts his finger on the blade. When he takes of the helmet, he discovers is finger is cut in real life! It's Freddy Kruger physics, people.

Somehow this all ties into the Day of Wonders, which the heroes decide they have to stop. Willie cooks up a plan to sneak Earl into Bad Guy HQ disguised as a janitor, where he can upload a virus that will sabotage the AntiChrist's plan. While Earl is on his way, Helen puts two and two together and figures out how the Day of Wonders will work; when people put on VR helmets and enter the blank VR world, they'll be shown the thing they most desire... and get tricked into taking the Mark of the Beast! Sadly, she doesn't figure this out in time to save Willie and Cindy; they put on their helmets and meet Franco Macaluso, who cures Cindy's blindness and restores Willie's ability to walk in exchange for their devotion to him. Willie and Cindy turn evil and shoot Helen's fat friend, but Helen herself escapes and rushes to help Earl.

Earl gets tricked into putting a VR helmet on, and Macaluso offers him his wife and daughter in exchange for his eternal worship. Earl isn't fooled, so Macaluso sticks him in the guillotine and prepares to lop off his head. Earl gets Saved, literally and figuratively, by converting to Christianity before the blade comes down, and then Helen Hannah yanks the helmet off his head. Earl inserts the virus program, but before it can upload the bad guys arrive. Parker takes Earl and Helen to the incinerator to burn with the other Haters, while Willie and Cindy are left to stop the virus upload.

Naturally, God intervenes and saves the viewer from a satisfying ending. Nothing Willie and Cindy do can stop the virus program from loading; they pull out every plug, then smash the computer to bits, all to no avail. At the same time, Parker stares in astonishment through the incinerator door window as Helen, Earl, Selma and other Haters stand unharmed in the flames. Parker decides to take care of them personally, so he opens the incinerator door and gets incinerated. And the O.N.E. building burns down. And the Day of Wonders is stopped. But our heroes are perfectly safe, thanks entirely to divine intervention.

Andre Van Herdeen takes over directing duties on this film, and would go on to direct several more Cloud Ten films (including the remaining two Apocalypse sequels). He brings a lot more cinematic style to the table, and delivers a much more entertaining product than his predecessor Peter Gerretsen managed with the original film. No reliance on stock footage here! Sadly, that's not enough to make Revelation any good. It's just a lot less bad. With cartoon villains, unlikable heroes and an awful script, all this film can do is supply safe entertainment for true believers while offering no chance of being taken seriously by a secular audience.

Likely To Convert - 0
Production Values - 2
Acting/Direction - 4
Likely To Be Sat Through - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 7
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Apocalypse

2011-02-04T19:28:00.000-08:00

In the world of Christian cinema (otherwise known as Direct To DVD/Video), there are few more prolific than Peter and Paul Lalonde. They are the creative force behind Cloud Ten Pictures, responsible for such classics as Deceived, Saving God, the Left Behind trilogy, and the Apocalypse quartet. It is this latter series about the latter days to which I now turn my reviewer's wrath.

Like Left Behind, Apocalypse deals with the Rapture and its aftermath. Unfortunately, it only has a tenth of Left Behind's budget. To put that another way, if it weren't for stock footage, this film would not exist.

Written and produced by Peter and Paul Lalonde and directed by Peter Gerretsen, Apocalypse follows television reporters Helen Hannah (Leigh Lewis) and Bronson Pearl (Richard Nester), "a man and a woman, caught in the eye of the storm..." It seems there is a "wave of fear spreading around the globe," with the armies of sixty nations converging on Israel for the battle of Armageddon. The World News Network (WNN) sends trusted reporter and anchorman Bronson Pearl to the plains of Megiddo, "the only passage into Israel that Mother Nature has left open," to report on the conflict. Bronson's a do-gooder who wants to make a difference, and show the world what's really going on.

Helen Hannah, Bronson's girlfriend and fellow anchor, is left behind (ha!) at the WNN news desk. Fellow reporter Suzie comforts Helen on Bronson's chances for survival by telling her that "Jim and I have our whole church praying for him." Helen's grandmother is also a Believer, leaving two conveniently-placed people for Helen to notice missing in the event of the Rapture.

Lots of bad stuff happens, as shown through stock footage. Tel Aviv is hit with chemical weapons, and Israeli General Moshe Alizar is so incensed he condemns the action in English. The film assumes that everyone speaks our language; another reporter speaks in English on electronic billboards around the globe, and everyone seems to understand. They don't even need subtitles!

More bad stuff happens. China sinks a US battleship, and the US destroys China's Ministry of Defence building. "It's like everyone is just assuming there is no turning back," wails Bronson, who ducks every now and then while bombs go off all around him. The one ray of hope the world has is European Union President Franco Macalusso (Sam Bornstein), the one man who has the respect of all the combatants. He's reported to be the only one who can stop the war. All the world's nuclear missiles are launched, and it appears the end of humanity is nigh.

And then... THE RAPTURE!!! People disappear all over the globe, leaving behind piles of nicely-folded clothing. So nice that the supernatural force that took all the Believers up to Heaven took the trouble to fold the clothes like that. A shame it couldn't be bothered to deal with the other consequences of the event. Planes fall because their pilots are gone, cars crash and trains smash into each other. It makes you wonder... if all these Christians believed the Rapture was going to happen, why did so many of them choose careers in transportation? In light of the destruction caused by their vanishing, the Christian pilots, engineers and drivers look pretty darned irresponsible if not completely reckless.

And another thing... are there really that many Christians in the world? The movie makes it seem like every country has been devastated by the vanishings, but how many vanished people would there really be if the Rapture actually took place? Putting aside all the atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others, there are so many different kinds of Christians out there, and not all of them believe in the Rapture or being Born Again. Take away all of those people, and how many people do you have left? But I digress...

The Christians aren't the only ones to vanish. Also gone are all the nuclear missiles. Were they Bible-believing, born-again missiles? All the conflict in the Middle East has ground to a halt due to sheer confusion. Everyone's asking questions, and many more are making exclamations. "It's as if they... vanished!" one character says, and the phrase "I can't believe it!" gets almost as much screen time as the stock footage.

Back at WNN, Helen and others find neatly-folded clothes where Suzy and Jim were seconds before. Helen journeys to Grandma's house and gets a big surprise... she's gone, too! Luckily Granny was able to write a quick note to Helen before she was Raptured, telling her granddaughter what has happened and that it is not too late for her to get Saved, too.

So, Granny somehow sensed the imminent arrival of the Rapture and had enough time to write a note, but others didn't have advanced warning enough to pull over their cars or put their planes on autopilot?

Okay, I'm digressing again. Helen watches a video starring noted televangelists Drs. Jack and Rexella Van Impe, co-hosts of Jack Van Impe Presents. Jack sets Helen straight about what is going on, and what to look out for in the months and years to come. Helen researches the Bible, then prays to get Saved while inspirational music plays.

Meanwhile, European Union President Franco Macalusso offers a statement to the media from the Mount of Olives. He declares himself to be both God and the Messiah, and that he was the one who made the nukes disappear. He also says he removed certain people from the planet "because they have chosen the way of hate." For some reason, nobody is skeptical of his claims. News broadcasts from General Alizar, a US Navy Admiral named Jim Kirk (ha, ha) and others are all certain the end of the war was nothing less than divine intervention. "...you are hearing these words now thanks to God," says one. "Period."

And here, dear readers, is where the plot really begins. The Antichrist Macalusso (for he could be none other) sends the evil Len Parker (David Roddis) to take over WNN "to help him create a heaven on earth." Basically, that means pro-Macalusso propaganda and ignoring all dissenting opinions. Macalusso delivers several broadcasts, reminding everyone "I have brought peace to the world" and "The power is not outside yourselves, it is within yourselves." He also tells people that Jesus Christ was a deceiver, and that the 'Haters' (what Christians are called throughout the four movies) must be rounded up and dealt with before anyone can enjoy his peace. Stock footage comes into play again to show Christians the world over being arrested and beaten while their churches and Bibles are burned. It seems a lot of Christians really were left behind (giggle) after the Rapture!

Helen Hannah won't stand for that! She brings her boyfriend Bronson Pearl over to granny's house to show him the Van Impe tape and all the research she has done. Bronson isn't sold on Jesus, and Helen has a fit. "It's clear, Bronson," she says. "And if you would just open up that steel trap of yours, you'd see it, too." Bronson reminds her that she is a journalist, and as such they need to be objective and look at the facts. Helen retorts that she has evidence Macalusso is an impostor, but she never reveals what it is. Perhaps she thinks her Van Impe tape and the Bible are all the evidence she needs. That might do for this film's intended audience, but anyone else will be laughing.

Incidentally, why does everyone take Macalusso at his word when he says he got rid of the nukes? Everyone in this world seems so gullible and trusting.

Anyway, Bronson doesn't buy it, even after Helen shows him all the biblical prophecies that have come true. He storms off, and Helen goes into hiding. The evil Len Parker interrogates Bronson, demanding to know Helen Hannah's whereabouts. Bronson doesn't go for his bull, and why should he? Parker is a walking cartoon character cliche, right down to his textbook villain dialogue. It doesn't help that David Roddis' performance is so hammy it's practically wrapped in bacon.

While Macalusso sets up a seven year peace treaty between Arabs and Jews, Helen engages in a car chase with Parker's thugs. It is, without doubt, the slowest and most boringly shot car chase in movie history.

Bronson has a heart to heart with his dead daddy in the cemetery, and reveals the torture of his soul. He wants to believe Macalusso, "but there's just something that's holding me back. I can't explain it, but it's as if something's tugging at me..." That tugging, holding back something pushes the clouds aside so that the moon can illuminate Bronson's dad's tombstone. There is a Bible reference there, because Bronson's dad was devout; Bronson looks it up and discovers that "the dead in Christ will rise first..." Bronson digs up his dad's coffin and pops the lid, and finds a pile of neatly-folded clothes and a Bible. Bronson gets saved, with more inspirational music playing.

Incidentally, Bronson's clothes look remarkably clean for someone who's just dug up a coffin. Doesn't he sweat? Are his clothes dirt resistant?

Of all the Christian-produced movies I've seen, Apocalypse is the worst. It's best enjoyed as an unintentional comedy, a so-bad-it-is-good kind of thing. Like Anaconda, but without the sense of fun. Or the giant snake.

The script is weak, filled with cardboard stereotypes and no surprises at all. Blame Dr. Jack Van Impe for that - he was the script supervisor, after all. Peter Gerretsen demonstrates a complete lack of skill as director. His attempts at suspense or tension are laughable, best demonstrated by the aforementioned car chase. While his news camera-style of filming does help to create a sense of reality during the Armageddon scenes, it looks cheap and fake everywhere else. Yes, the budget was tiny and the production values make porn look high-class, but that's no excuse for having no talent. Andre Van Heerden, the film's post production supervisor and camera assistant, would go on to become the director for all three sequels.

So that's the first installment in the Apocalypse quartet. The sequels get better, but not by much...

Likely To Convert - 0
Production Values - 0
Acting/Direction - 1
Likely To Be Sat Through - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 10
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Can We Know?

2010-12-03T07:20:00.001-08:00

No, we can't. But this offering from Evangelical Tract Distributors would seek to convince us otherwise. Convince us of what? What do you think? That Jesus is the only way to Heaven, naturally.

"Many preachers and religious leaders step forward boldly with their opinions," the tract writer assures us. "But eternity is too serious a matter to trust to opinions." None of those preachers or religious leaders are identified by name, of course. And even better, the words of this tract are based entirely on opinions - namely, those of the tract authors. Sure, they use scripture quotes to back their words up, but the interpretation of those quotes (and their supposed infallibility) are the authors' opinions.

Yes they are.

"Although there are many theories and opinions, there are really only two ways - man's way and God's way." And according to this tract, God's way is the way presented in the New Testament. Every other belief system is Man's way, and therefore doomed.

Doomed!

And did I mention that the existence of Heaven is itself a matter of opinion? I did, in another review. Secular readers won't care. But the tract authors are of the opinion that they will care.

The tract attempts to illustrate its point with a story about two men entering a temple. "One came in man's way, and the other came in God's way." One of them "will spend eternity with the lost." Can you guess who?

"Friend, are you in the right way?" Then the tract asks, "Are you trusting the right Man?" just to confuse things. They've spent four pages poo-pooing man's way, then they ask if we're trusting the right one? This will only end up confusing the very people they are trying to reach. Namely, people dumb enough to be drawn in by this kind of thing.

"...how can a person know the right way to Heaven?" By dying. That's when all of us find out. We certainly won't learn about the afterlife from lame tracts like this.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

Free Beautiful Homes

2010-12-02T10:24:00.000-08:00

I know I keep asking for tracts that don't just say 'you're going to burn in HELL if you don't accept Jesus'. I know I've asked that they try something new. This new offering from Evangelical Tract Distributors does both, and while that's very nice of them, the end result is so lame it is almost laughable.

If only it were laughable! That, at least, would be something.

Rather than kick the HELL can, this tract goes in the opposite direction. That's right, they're selling Heaven.

"No Water Bills," promises the tract. "No Light Bills," "Nothing Undesirable," "The Best Of Society," "Beautiful Music," "Permanent Pavement - Pure Gold" and "Free Transportation To The City" are among the promises of this sales pitch, complete with scripture quotes to back them up. Are these promises also backed up with verifiable empirical evidence? Don't be silly.

The tract briefly raises the issue of Salvation, saying it is the only way to obtain a free title to your new home. But why would one need Salvation to get this new home? The Salvation issue is just pasted on, without any context. In their effort to be different, the tract writers have entirely missed their own point. You can't just throw it in there! If you don't want to talk about Hell and Damnation and Eternal Burning In Agony and Scorching Tongues, you can't go bringing up Salvation, either. Not without a radical re-definition of the term. And we all know the church's stance on re-defining terms!

Sorry, that was a low blow, but I couldn't resist. What I can resist, however, is this lame attempt to sell me an eternal destiny that may or may not exist. It sounds nice, but so do all real-estate pitches. I appreciate them trying a different approach, but they use the same tactics, and those don't work with the approach they've chosen.

Come to think of it, the use of Bible quotes to convince the UnSaved never works. At least, it doesn't ever work on me.

Try again, ETD!

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

So What's In It For Me?

2010-12-01T20:52:00.000-08:00

There's that old expression about not judging a book by its cover. It applies equally well to tracts, especially this one. Published by Canadian Bible Society, this one has a great, eye-catching cover, but the inside is something of a letdown.

The cover features a tough-looking dude in a toque, presumably asking the titular question. It's like he's saying: "Hey, I'm just an average schlub like you, and I'm askin' the same question you're prob'ly askin', right?" The tract writers seem to assume we'll relate to this dude, and therefore find the inside material more appealing.

Well, I don't relate to him. And I wouldn't be caught dead in that shirt. Just look at it, for God's sake.

Other people might relate to him and his shirt and his toque, however, and they might open this tract expecting to find something that would appeal to toque-wearing schlubs like them.

The tract assumes you know it is a tract, and begins at once trying to convert you. It poses seven questions, then supplies answers to those questions that are supposed to convince you that Jesus is the way to go. The questions are written in schlub language, and include: 1. "What has God done for me?"; 2. "Nothing comes free in this world so why would God give me something for free?"; and 6. "What have I got to lose?"

The answers provide no facts or proof, as is common with nearly all tracts. They don't even supply the Bible verses the answers are based on! Rather, familiar lines of scripture are rewritten into modern English, presumably so schlubs can understand them.

It's as if the tract authors have figured out you can't convert someone who isn't already a believer just by throwing scripture in his/her face. Kudos to that, I say! Sadly, they don't take the next logical step. Telling someone that Jesus can forgive their sins means nothing if you have no concept of sin in the first place. For a tract like this to have any relevance, the reader must first accept the Christian notion of sin, and understand why that's a bad thing.

The tract does take a step in the right direction when addressing the question: 5. "What else do I get out of it?" "God's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle and self-controlled." It's not often that a tract does more than offer a get-out-of-Hell pass. It's the fifth question, however, well after the sin stuff. Too little, too late.

This is one of the better tracts I've reviewed, with an above-average idea of who they are writing for. It still won't save any souls, but it shows that tracts can, ahem, evolve. Let's hope the Canadian Bible Society keeps moving in this promising direction. If they do, we just might see some decent stuff from them in the future.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 6
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 2

A Divine Revelation of Hell

2010-07-27T08:50:00.000-07:00

Back when I reviewed Bible Man, I wrote that sometimes in my line of work I come across something so bizarre and out-there that it must be seen to be believed. Into that ever-expanding category I bring you A Divine Revelation Of Hell by Mark K. Baxter.

First, let me point out that this book is supposedly nonfiction. That is, the content that Mary presents us with isn't meant to be read as fiction. Mary K. would have us believe that every word of her story is TRUE. We clear on that? Good.

A Divine Revelation of Hell tells the tale of Mary's encounters with Jesus Christ, and their repeated journeys down into Hell. Apparently, the Lord and Saviour chose her, out of the six billion of us on the planet, to accompany HIM on a guided tour of Hell for the purpose of writing a book about it. That book, the LORD thinks, will better convince people of Hell's reality, and therefore convince them to embrace Christianity.

And we, the readers, are expected to swallow that. Riiiiight.

Simply put, I do not. I'll get into why later, except to say that if Jesus really did choose her, why did he pick someone with such poor writing ability? It's not that she isn't imaginative or descriptive... okay, it kind of is. But the main problem is that, well... you kind of have to read a bit to see what I'm getting at:

"I was so thankful when we entered the tunnel. I thought, The tunnel cannot possibly be as bad as the pits. But how wrong I was! As soon as we were inside, I began to see great snakes, large rats, and many evil spirits, all running from the presence of the Lord. The snakes hissed at us, and the rats squealed. There were many evil sounds. Vipers and dark shadows were all about us. Jesus was the only light to be seen in the tunnel. I stayed as close to Him as I could. Imps and devils were all over the sides of this cavern, and they were all going somewhere up and out of the tunnel. I found out later that these evil spirits were going out onto the earth to do Satan's bidding."

Or how about:

"These are the words that Jesus spoke to me. He instructed me to write them and put them into a book and to tell them to the world. These words are true. These revelations were given to me by the Lord Jesus Christ so that all may know and understand the workings of Satan and the evil schemes he is planning for the future."

See?

The story is simple enough. Jesus takes Mary from her home to Hell by way of a vortex, several of which hover tornado-like over the earth to catch damned souls. Hell turns out to be in the shape of a human body, complete with arms, legs, jaws and heart. Oh, and Outer Darkness, too. A chapter is devoted to each section, with a few more (like The Horrors of Hell) thrown in for good measure. Each section contains its own unique features and torments for the damned; Jesus gives the grand tour, explaining the different punishments in each area.

For example, in Hell's left leg "there were pits of fire everywhere as far as the eye could see." Jesus shows a few of these to Mary, who says "I don't know if I can go on, for this is awful beyond belief." Damned souls trapped in skeletons are burned in the pits, and when they see Jesus they beg to be released. Some of them speak most eloquently about the sins they have committed, all the chances they had to repent but didn't, how they thought they had so much time, then one day the unexpected happened and now they're in a pit burning alive. You'd think they'd be in too much agony to do anything but scream. Whatever their story, Jesus' answer is always the same: "The Judgment is set." Even Mary tries to plead with Jesus, but nothing will sway HIM.

I won't go into the other areas in any great detail - it's just more of the same. It's interesting to note, however, that Jesus abandons Mary in Hell to fend for herself. Twice. "You could never know for sure (that Hell is real) until you had experienced it for yourself," Jesus says after rescuing her from his abandonment the first time. During that abandonment, "the most excruciating pain I could imagine swept over me." She was taken before Satan, who had his demons throw her "into something cold and clammy" where "the fire burned my body, and the worms crawled over and through me." She goes through all that, and Jesus ditches her again nine chapters later! The bastard.

Also of note is the chapter on Outer Darkness, because the concept is so silly. There's a bit in the Bible about certain sinners being cast into outer darkness, and that's exactly what happens; they are loaded into a big disk, and then a 30-foot tall angel picks up that disk and chucks it into a realm called (spoiler alert) Outer Darkness. "My Word means just what it says," Jesus tells Mary.

Personally, I'd much rather ride the disk than get stuck in a burning pit.

At some point in 'writing' this, Mary K realized she'd need some filler. There's a chapter on Heaven, and a lot of space is given to Bible prophecy about the End Times. Mary is shown visions of a dire future, where the Beast has "a 'big brother' machine that could see into homes and businesses." She also sees a scene where the Beast takes an "angry man into a larger room" and lies him down under "a vast machine." What was the vast machine for? "On the top of the machine were the words, 'this mind eraser belongs to the beast, 666." I'm serious! That's what it says. You always want to have your mind erasers labeled, I guess. Wouldn't want to mix it up with the expresso machine.

But that's not the only example of Mary K's really bad writing (though it is one of the best!). She has an annoying habit of repeating things, or of interrupting the narrative to speak directly to the reader about the need to convert to Christianity. Jesus constantly reminds her that he has chosen her to write this book about Hell so that people will know it is real. Does HE really think she's going to forget? Or did Mary figure that reminding the reader of it constantly would make them more likely to believe it?

I'm not even convinced Mary K. Baxter wrote this; the book is copyrighted to a T.L. Lowery. Curiouser and curiouser. T.L. would go on to be a credited co-author on several of Mary's other Divine Revelation books (yes, it's a series), but is name is conspicuously absent on this volume.

Other oddities include the two pages of reviews for this book at the front. Nine people praise the book, which means Mary found at least nine people who thought this was the real deal! Or maybe they were well paid. It's interesting that none of the nine appear to be literary critics.

One of those 'critics' states: "Mary's descriptions of hell are so real that readers will feel that they are right there with her..." Uh huh. Sure, there's a lot of imagination on display, but her descriptions are lacking. Every place is dark, has a foul odour, is full of horrors and terror. She rarely goes beyond that, so this reader never got a sense of the place. The demons get a little more attention, but that only serves to spotlight the book's frail reality. Any lazy writer can stick a jumble of animal parts together and call it a demon. One can't help but think that Mary made them up.

And Satan? He escapes all description altogether. Not one word is used to give the reader a sense of the Devil's form. For that matter, Jesus doesn't get much of a write-up, either. "I cannot find words to express His divine presence," Mary says, "but I know that I know it was the Lord." What?!?

So, divine warning or poorly-written cash grab? If you really need to ponder that one, I feel sorry for you. Still, I could be wrong. Perhaps when I die, I'll say the words that Mary K. Baxter spoke when Jesus left her in Hell for the second time: "Oh, no! I am in hell forever! Oh, no!"

But I doubt it.

Note: There is a special section of Hell for "men loving men, and women loving women, who would not repent and be saved from their sin." It involves blood, fire and chains. That's why it scores points for Disturbing or Offensive Content.

Likely to Convert - 0
Cover Art - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 8
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 3

The Indwelling: Left Behind Book 7 (Audiobook)

2010-07-10T08:01:00.000-07:00

My review of Desecration went way longer than I should have gone, so I'll try to make this one shorter. This is the first time I've reviewed an audiobook for this blog, which makes this post somewhat special I suppose. It's an abridged audiobook, running at about 180 minutes, so that should help me chop the reviewing length down.

As with the other books in this series, the authors are Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. The audio version was read by an actor named Frank Muller, who does a creditable job at reading the text and doing different voices for all the various characters.

The story picks up right where Book 6 - Assassins - left off, with the murder of the AntiChrist Nicolae Carpathia during a public appearance. Rayford Steele, who had intended to do the deed, changed his mind at the last second only to have his gun go off accidentally. Everyone assumed he'd done it, but it was in fact Chaim Rosenweitz who performed the killing blow. It seems Chaim pretended to have a stroke in the last book in order to convince Nicolae that he was harmless. His plan worked, Nicolae died, and Chaim escaped thanks to the intervention of the plucky Buck Williams.

Rayford makes his own escape, and is told he is a sinner for trying to do things his way. Rayford should have trusted that God would take care of the assassination! But he didn't, because he has so much pride. Ray prays for forgiveness, and he and Jesus are best buds once again.

Chaim also gets Saved, finally giving in to the constant preaching of Buck over the last several books. Nevertheless his conversion seems a bit sudden - the scene where he is convinced of the Wrongness of his ways and of his Desperate Need for Jesus must have been cut to make the 180 minute running time.

Meanwhile, False Prophet Leon Fortunando sets up a huge funeral for his dead boss, and hires a gay stereotype named Guy Blod to design and build a huge gold statue of Nicolae Carpathia. Leon also has super burning powers, and can call down fire from above (from where above is never spelled out) to destroy Nicolae's enemies. He uses this super power very publicly to dispose of three world leaders who weren't loyal enough to Carpathia. Cool super power, but why couldn't the AntiChrist himself have that power? I pointed out in my last review that Nicolae has to borrow a gun every time he wants to shoot someone.

Of course, Nicolae does have one awesome super power: the ability to come back from the dead. At the funeral, Nicolae returns to life in front of a crowd of thousands and on national television, proving just how awesome he really is and fulfilling the Biblical prophecy predicting his return. And, according to the Bible, the AntiChrist returns to life with Satan in possession of him. Indwelling in his body, as it were. Hence the title. Now that Satan is in command, Nicolae pretty much goes on acting like his old self. In fact, the only way we actually know that Satan is in the guy is because the Trib guys keep telling us so.

Speaking of the Tribulation Force, they have problems of their own. Their super-secure safehouse has been compromised, but they all manage to escape without a single one of them getting captured. The Tribs always seem to escape the AntiChrist's minions with an overabundance of ease. Maybe it's because they have God on their side? Even so, it's a weakness that this book, and indeed the rest of the series, suffers from tremendously.

As bad as I'm making it sound, The Indwelling was still a relatively amusing book. I listened to it on my old Sony Walkman (yes, I still have one[yes, this audiobook copy I found is on cassette]) at night before bed, and I wasn't bored. I wasn't all that fascinated, either; as good a voice as Frank Muller has, he could not convince me to keep listening once I got tired. I'd have to say that Indwelling is pretty much a lesser entry in the series. Nothing much seems to happen - and this is the book where the AntiChrist returns from the dead possessed by Satan! The entire book feels like filler. Fun filler at times, but filler none the less.

There, that was a little shorter, wasn't it? Of course, I didn't go into as much depth as I usually go, so this is kind of an abridged review, too.

Likely to Convert - 0
Cover Art - 4
Reader's Voice - 6
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 5

Desecration: Book 9 in the Left Behind series

2010-05-30T11:44:00.000-07:00

You never know what you'll get until you ask. I was in a used bookstore looking for some religious nuttiness to read (and possibly review) and I found the audiobook of The Indwelling, which is Left Behind book 7. I asked at the counter if they had any more of that kind of stuff - I'm dying to get my hands on a cheap copy of Glorious Appearing, where Jesus returns to Earth and starts disintegrating sinners - and was told they had one of the books in the discount bin. Then they went to that bin, pulled it out and handed it to me free of charge!

Sadly, it wasn't Glorious Appearing. It was Desecration (book 9), and it luckily proved to be a fun read.

Desecration, by authors Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, begins the way a good sequel should not - it leaps straight into the action without any regard for readers who haven't been following this thing from the beginning. Fortunately I've seen all three movies (and read the original novel so I had something to go on. I soon got the gist, which is as follows:

The Tribulation Force, led by plucky Buck Williams and Rayford Steele, are trying to help fellow believers stay alive during the reign of the Antichrist. They are also trying to Save as many non-believers as possible before they take the Mark of the Beast and become forever damned to Hell.

The Antichrist, Nicolae Carpathia, has been having an interesting time. Going from UN representative to the ruler of the world in three and a half years (and eight books), he's now risen to the level of deity. And he was assassinated. And rose from the dead three days later, now possessed by Satan. A global dictator, religious leader and divine being all in one, he remains blissfully unaware that his entire life (and death) have been prophesied in the Book of Revelations. You'd think he'd give that a look-see.

The Trib Force dudes certainly have. So much so, in fact, that they know what Nicky's going to do before he does. This time out, they know he's going to desecrate the Temple Mount (hence the title). At the same time the Tribbies are hoping to convince and convert the Remnant (the title of the next book), all the people of Israel who are not loyal to Nick. If they can get them all to Petra, they will be safe all through Armageddon (Book 11), according to the Bible. And in this universe, the Bible is infallibly true. Even the contradictory bits.

Anyway, the story. Buck and his buddies want to make sure the Prophesied events unfold the way they should, even though their source of prophecy is infallible... oh, never mind. Buck and Chaim Rosenwitz (a recent convert to the cause, and the dude who assassinated Carpathia, among other things) are in Jerusalem to help get the Remnant out. God has 'called' Chaim to assume the identity of Micah (which apparently means something) and confront Nicolae to negotiate the terms of his not shooting the Remnant while they are high-tailing it to Petra. God sends a plague of boils onto all who have taken the Mark, putting them all out of action. Chaim, or Micah, says God will lift the boils if the Antichrist lets his people go.

Nicky's not happy about it, but he agrees. Besides, he's got a temple to desecrate, which he does by slaughtering a pig. The same pig he rode into the temple upon. Don't ask. This makes a lot of non-boiled people mad at him; it seems killing a pig in a holy site and then messing around in its blood strikes more than a few as a little nutso. For some reason, their reaction takes Nicky by surprise. For a world-dominating demigod possessed by Satan, he's kind of a dum-dum.

He's not much of a bad guy, either. Nicolae Carpathia never rises above the level of Saturday morning cartoon villain. I mean, he's frickin' Satan, for gosh sakes, and yet he has to ask his staff for a gun every time he wants to kill someone! Dr. Evil has more style.

But I digress. Rayford Steele is just dying to be part of the plot, so Jenkins/LaHaye give him his own mission in Petra. The GC (Global Community) soldiers have arrived at this supposedly safe haven ready to tear it down, but they're all covered in boils and aren't up to destroying and killing anything. Rayford shares half that sentiment - he is not prepared to kill - but blowing stuff up is fair game. He and his buddies fire these high-powered superguns at the GC vehicles and armaments, destroying them but leaving the itchy soldiers alive. This sequence is one of the best in the book, going into detail about how the big guns work, how loud they are, what the recoil is like, and the damage they do. You really get a sense of what firing one would be like for the first time.

Most other parts of the book aren't nearly as interesting. For example, when Chaim makes the transition from scared old man into the authoritative Micah, the reader doesn't even get a peek into his mind. What is it like to be filled with the Holy Spirit, to the point where you have no fear, complete moral certainty, and the ability to paralyze people with your mind? And take a bullet from point blank range and remain completely unharmed? We experience none of it, and are meant to simply witness it the way Buck Williams does.

Back to Rayford. He's in charge of getting the Remnant air-lifted from spots around Jerusalem to Petra using a fleet of helicopters the Tribbies have acquired over the last three years. Before he can do that, however, he has to deal with two GC soldiers who didn't up and run when their vehicles blew up. Those guys kill David, a really important Trib guy I knew nothing about (I haven't read the book where he was introduced, and Desecration assumes I already know him). Those GC soldiers might potentially kill more important but underdeveloped characters, so Rayford shoots them with his supergun. This violates his own no killing rule, and the bang leaves him deaf. More attention is given to his deafness than to his moral anguish. This is the man who, three books earlier, tried to assassinate Nicky Carpathia and felt really bad about said attempt afterwards. Maybe that was even the reason for his thou-shalt-not-kill rule to the other Tribbies. Or maybe it was some line from the Bible. Either way, any moral agonizing over the deaths of those men is glossed over in favour of his ears.

And then, no less an authority than the Archangel Michael appears before him and heals his ears, which pretty much rules out any further moralizing right there. If the Angel of the Lord heals the injury you sustained killing some guys, then it must be okay.

Over to Carpathia. Even though he said he wouldn't attack the Remnant on their way to Petra, he does anyway. You can't even trust the Antichrist these days! And, even though leaving the Remnant alone was a condition of Chaim/Michah/God's for the lifting of the plague of boils, God lifts the plague anyway, leaving the GC troops fully healed and able to carry out the attack! But God's no dum-dum - he has it covered. The bullets from the GC's weapons pass harmlessly through the bodies and vehicles of the Remnants and Tribs, and end up destroying more GC stuff (and people). Oh, and random miraculous earthquakes swallow up the landbound GC, and in one scene an entire squad is gobbled up by the ground just seconds before they could run all the good guys down. With all this divine supernatural intervention, one wonders why the Tribulation Force even bothers to show up.

God also turns every ocean into blood, killing all marine life. I guess the fish were sinners.

The plot is basically over by this point, but Jenkins & LaHaye still have another 150 or so pages left to fill. Chloe, Rayford's daughter & Buck's wife (and Kenny's mom) ventures out of the Tribulation Force's safehouse in Chicago to investigate a flickering light in a distant building. The city's been abandoned and is supposedly irradiated (a cunning ruse to keep the GC away from the safehouse), so Chloe wants to know if there are more people out there. Nobody knows where she's going, so if those people are bad Chloe could be in some real trouble. Luckily they turn out to be Christians eager to join the Tribulation Force. Good for Chloe, bad for the reader. A potential source of suspense is diffused just like that.

Fortunately in Greece some actual bad stuff happens. This Greek character tries to get a couple of teenagers into the hands of the Tributaries, but what was supposed to be a routine operation turns into a trap. Everyone gets killed except for George, the guy who was supposed to get the kids through the airport to safety. Rather than relying on Jesus, George turns to his military training to get through his capture and torture, and his inner dialogue provides for some good reading. No doubt his rescue will become a major plot point in book 10.

Desecration ends on a cliffhanger, the way most books in this series seem to do. Tsion Ben Judah, the Trib Force's rabbi turned evangelist, travels to Petra to address the Remnant, only for Nicky to drop a billion bombs on their heads. Has the Tribulation Force finally met their doom? Or will God, Jesus or Archangel Michael save their butts at the last second, yet again? Book 10 is called The Remnant, so what do you think?

Not all of the Trib's last-second escapes and/or victories rely on supernatural help. They have a few friends in the enemy camp, one of whom (Chang) is a teenage computer wizard. Not only can this kid use the GC network against them while simultaneously covering all of his tracks, he's also managed to bug all of the Antichrist's 'secure' locations. Any time the bad guys get together for a secret talk, Chang and the Tribbles are listening in. How lucky Buck, Rayford et al are to have such a useful person so conveniently placed! There is nothing Chang can't do with a computer, and no way he can be traced. Even when Nicky realizes there is a mole in his organization and takes steps to smoke him out, there is no danger at all that Chang will be caught. Quite the tension killer, is Chang. The only interesting thing about him is that he's got the Mark of the Beast on his noggin. He chose Jesus, but his parents knocked him out cold and had him branded, leading him to wonder if he's damned like the rest of the baddies. It's a legitimate concern, one which even Ben Judah can't figure out. This would have provided some great tension, but Jenkins & LaHaye diffuse it quickly. No good guys go to Hell. At least, not on the page.

And yet, for all of its flaws in plot, storytelling and character development, Desecration was an entertaining read. I wanted to know what would happen next, and never felt bored. Jenkins has a decent style, too; the book isn't hard to read. It's such a shame that Jerry B. Jenkins hasn't used his talent for evil. Imagine what he could accomplish without Tim LaHaye holding his leash.

Morally, this book has a few issues that bother me. Ben-Judah points out that, once a person has taken the Mark (or rejected Christ's advances one time too many), God will harden their hearts to him. In plain English, that means that people who have taken the Mark (some out of loyalty, most to avoid death by guillotine) will never be convinced to accept Jesus. Even if they turn against the AntiChrist, they will not be able to turn to God.

What kind of a whacked up God is that? Well, the same kind of God who would put the whole end-times Tribulation nonsense into effect, I suppose.

Desecration, and indeed the entire Left Behind series, gives a revealing look into the born again/evangelical mindset. And that's about it, really, if you're not a believer. There are better thrillers out there, and they don't rely on divine intervention to stop bullets or swallow army vehicles in miraculous earthquakes. This book is so lame, I feel like going to the Temple Mount to kill a pig.

Likely to Convert - 0
Cover Art - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

And Now... Books!

2010-05-24T09:26:00.000-07:00

Tracts are easy to review because they are so small and short, but I like to have some variety now and then. It is, after all, what I've been promising from the beginning. And I'll get around to reviewing some websites eventually.

For now, though, I want to take a look at some Christian-themed books. Or, to put it another way, books that are essentially very big tracts, in that they seem to share the tract goal of converting readers. To that end, I doubt my rating system will have to be changed much. I might substitute Artwork for Cover Art, although one of them has some nifty diagrams.

I've recently come upon some extremely cheap used copies of several Left Behind novels, one of them in audiobook form. I've also found something that rivals Bibleman for whackiness! Stay tuned, everyone; as with the videos, these reviews will take just a little bit longer to produce. I can, however, guarantee my usual reviewing standards. Enjoy!

Jesus: He Knows Your Past Present and Future

2010-05-17T08:34:00.000-07:00

I'm not at all sure if the subtitle for this mish-mash of a tract is meant to be a threat or a comfort. I'm not even certain it's a subtitle, honestly. There are two other random phrases on the cover, so it could be one of them.

Heh. The random phrase at the top reads: "In any language there are no more wonderful word." Bad grammar is not a good thing for any tract to begin with, let alone one from a relatively unknown company like Kind Acts Media Inc. If this is their first tract, it is not a very good example of what Kind Acts is capable of.

Take the art. Or, rather, the sample art. The words 'sample artwork' appear five times on the cover image, to distracting effect. A shame, because it is otherwise a striking image of the living and the dead being raptured up to heaven.

The art on the back is equally evocative and flawed. Pictures of Hell and Heaven are side by side on the last page; the Hell one depicts a man screaming in agony as he burns in flames, while the Heaven image shows a sort of half-castle half-skyscraper in the clouds. Great pictures for a tract, but both were clearly pinched from somewhere else. The Hell one has some out of focus print in its lower right corner, while the same spot on the Heaven art has the characters Eng. 110. Don't know what that means, and it doesn't matter. The image was lifted from somewhere else, and the tract maker was too lazy to clean them up. Or acknowledge the artist.

The type inside the tract is an even worse mish-mash. Some words are in blue type. Some are in red. Some are underlined, or in all caps. It's a visual nightmare, putting all but the most masochistic off reading it.
Which is a good thing - the bad grammar continues, and one bit would be very offensive if it were structured better: "What I believe in? I am an Atheist, J. Witness, Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sheik or in money, good deeds, charity etc." What the fudge does that mean?

This tract is a Frankenstein's monster of a creation, but I doubt any will be shouting "It's alive!" No, the people at Kind Acts Media Inc. should really leave tract making to the professionals - or at least follow the instructions - before they attempt to play God's advocate. Nice art, though. "He knows your Past Present and Future," says the subtitle. Maybe, but I suspect the artist or artists are the only ones involved with this thing that have any future in the tract biz.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 6
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 3

The Ten Commandments

2010-05-17T08:09:00.001-07:00

You'd think a tract called The Ten Commandments would, I don't know, LIST those commandments somewhere in its' pages. But no, you'd be wrong. This offering from Fellowship Tract League chooses instead to explore what the Commandments show. Without actually showing the Commandments.

"There is a lot of confusion about the Ten Commandments," the tract begins. "Many people believe that they must follow the Law so that they can go to heaven, but the Bible does not say that!" Just like this tract doesn't... sorry. "God never intended for us to keep (the Commandments) in an effort to go to heaven." Instead, God gave us the Ten Commandments in order to show us four things, displayed as paragraph titles. "The Commandments show our SIN," they "show our SUFFERING," they "show our STUMBLING," and they "show us the SAVIOUR." And you thought they were all about not coveting your neighbour's ass, huh?

The SIN paragraph says "the Commandments were given to show us that we are sinners." Huh, you say? I believe they mean it like this: God gave Moses the Commandments not to provide guidelines for living, but rather to show us the sins WE'D ALREADY COMMITTED. In other words, when Moses saw the Commandments for the first time, he must have slapped his forehead and said, "So that's what I've been doing wrong all these years!"

Does that make any sense to you? Me neither. Nevertheless, this is the premise the tract author embraces. "All men are under the curse of death in hell for breaking God's Commandments," says the SUFFERING paragraph. The STUMBLING section is broken into two subsections, which tell us the "two things that the Law cannot do." The Commandments can't forgive sin or give righteousness, both of which are prerequisites for a non-hell eternity. "If you think that you can become righteous by following the Commandments, you are replacing Christ's work on the cross with your works." Shame on you!

It almost seems as if the tract author is advocating a life of lawlessness. After all, the Law is only there to show us what we've done wrong. Following the Law is a non-starter; there's no point in keeping the Law if it can't do anything for you! I'm gonna go do some serious ass-coveting as soon as I'm done here.

The SAVIOUR section, as I'm sure you've guessed, tells the reader about Jesus and provides a get-Saved prayer. That, apparently, was God's plan: show people they are sinners by giving Moses the Commandments, then wait a few thousand years to become Jesus and finally give the people something they can do about their sinfulness. Too bad about all those people who died before Jesus came along, Moses included! God does work in mysterious ways, doesn't HE?

Still, I have to give this tract credit for one thing - at least they found a new approach to the Salvation story. Like The Fortune Teller, and unlike I Must Tell You This. And what a bold stand, declaring that the Ten Commandments are essentially useless! Poor Moses would be spinning in his grave, if he weren't burning in hell with Adam, Eve, Abraham, Ruth, Samson, King David, Joseph and his coat, and everyone else who lived before Jesus came along.

And do I even need to point out that this tract makes no attempt at all to prove its claims? No, I didn't think so.

"If you have been trusting the Commandments," the tract says, "you are not saved." Uh huh. And if you trust this tract, you're a dum-dum.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 5
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 3

I Must Tell You This

2010-05-02T12:34:00.001-07:00

"I know something so wonderful that I must tell you!"

So begins this lame and predictable effort from the Fellowship Tract League. Gee, what could this wonderful something possibly be?

"Let me emphasize that this message is absolutely true," continues the uncredited author, "because God said it." Uh huh. Before the reader can wonder if the author actually spoke to the Almighty, said author reveals that the message "is an exact quotation from God's word, the Holy Bible." Too bad. Reading that a tract writer actually heard the voice of God would have at least been something new and different.

The message is John 3:16, the bit about God lovething the world so much he gaveth his only begotteneth Son, so that people who believeth in him should not perisheth but have everlasting life. Eth. "Did you ever hear such wonderful words?"

Yeah, I've heard them many times before, but I don't consider them particularly wonderful. Or relevant to my life. When it comes to wonderful words, I think of the words my wife said when I asked her to marry me ("Of course!"). I also think of phrases like: "We'd like to publish your book," or "There's a sale on at Toys R Us!" or "No, I can't finish my steak, would you like the rest of it?"

But no, I don't think it is wonderful that a deity sacrificed its only child so that the creatures it created won't have to burn for eternity in a fiery realm the deity also created, all because of some damned apple. Come on, how wonderful can it be that 'God' created a way out of the trap HE put us in?

To a Believer, the words of John 3:16 must be brilliant indeed. I do not think they are enough to encourage conversion from non-believers, who are clearly the intended audience for this tract. I doubt they'll make it past the second paragraph.

"Your time on earth is short, but your decision for Christ lasts for eternity." Maybe so, but you'll have to do better than this tract, League, if you want them to decide in your deity's favour.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 0
Ability to Hold Interest - 1
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

The Fortune Teller

2010-05-02T12:13:00.000-07:00

Here's a wacky and offbeat tale from Moments With The Book, yet another tract publisher. I found this and other MWTB tracts in a Christian bookstore on Finch, where you can buy batches of tracts to hand out anywhere to the Unsaved.

I have to give Moments With The Book credit for this one - finally, someone (the author is credited as W. L.) has found a new and different way to tell the same old story.

Five guys on a train are playing cards, and they ask a friend of WL's to join them. He declines, but he does offer to tell them their fortunes with the five of spades. He warns them that "it may not be very flattering," but the five card players insist that he go on. WL's friend (let's call him Smug Bastard) asks them for a Bible, but the card players don't have one. "You had one once," Smug Bastard says, "and if you had followed its precepts you would not be what you are today." He then produces his own Bible, suggesting he only asked them for one to gain a morally superior position. You see why I'm calling him Smug Bastard?

Smug tells them the five spades on the card represent their eyes, mouth and knees, then he reads Revelation 1:7 where Jesus comeths with clouds "and every eye shall see him." "The eyes are your eyes," Smug says, "which will see Him when you stand before Him to be judged. That is the future of your eyes." Smug Bastard reads another bit of scripture at them, foretelling "that your knees will bow to Jesus, and your tongue will confess that He is Lord of all."

But Smug ain't done, not by a longshot. He has another reading of the card for their listening pleasure. "These five spades," he tells them, "represent five actual spades that may, before long, dig the graves of you five sinners." Wait! There's more. "Then your souls will be in hell crying in thirst for even a single drop of water." Smug goes on to give them the Salvation pitch, assuring them that "I was no doubt worse than you all, and you will escape this terrible fortune if you will do what I did." Immediately after his pitch "the train then stopped, and the five rushed out as if the car was on fire." Can't say I blame them!

I really don't believe this story actually happened. For one thing, WL adds details about the five card players' thoughts that are suspect at best. When Smug Bastard tells them he used to know how to play cards a long time ago, WL writes: "Thinking they could win his money, they continued to coax him..." How did WL, or even Smug Bastard, know what they were thinking? That's guesswork, but WL includes it as if it were fact.

Smug Bastard also makes a lot of judgment calls on the five men. He calls them sinners to their faces, and assumes that they must be so because they don't have a Bible on them. If they had, "you would not be what you are today." Would anyone really make such comments to total strangers? Well, yes, if they were smug bastards.

The story ends ten years later, with one of the five card players catching up with Smug Bastard and wishing him a good evening. "It is a good evening," Smug replies, "if all your sins are forgiven." What a dick. The card guy, let's call him Twerp McStupid, tells Smug "that three spades had already dug their graves, and that the fourth man was anxious to be saved from the fortune he had been given." Twerp had already found Salvation; by a contrived bit of happenstance, his mother had died at around the same time as the fortune telling on the train. Her last words to the junior McStupid were, "Behold He cometh with coulds; and every eye shall see him." Exactly what Smug Bastard told Twerp on the train! Coinkidink? Twerp McStupid didn't think so. Those words followed him everywhere, even though he "tried to drink them away," until one final time that was "more than I could stand."

I know how you feel, Twerp. This tract was almost more than I could stand, too! Like I said, WL provides a new and fresh take on the Jesus message, and for that I say, kudos. However, the intolerable smugness of Smug Bastard wipes those kudos away. Why can't we have a tract in which the Believer doesn't judge people, and is actually open to other points of view?

I guess such a thing just isn't in the cards.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 3

After Death, What?

2010-04-09T08:27:00.001-07:00

I thought I might have already reviewed this one, but I haven't. I guess after a while the majority of these things start to look the same.

Which gives you a pretty good idea where I'm going with this review, doesn't it? I hardly need to go into any detail, but I will anyway. Some of it is too good to pass up.

Basically, this latest from the Fellowship Tract League tells you that, after death, you will either be in Heaven or Hell. "How many times have you looked into a casket, seen the face of the deceased," the tract begins, establishing the morbid tone. "If the deceased died in a lost spiritual condition, his troubles have just begun. The instant his soul leaves his body, it goes directly to hell to burn for ever and ever."

I'm sure those well-chosen words will be of great comfort to the deceased's family.

It gets better, too. "Suffering does not end at death for a lost person," the tract tells us. "After ten million years of eternity, he will still be burning." This author knows how to lay it on thick!

"You are not promised another day on this earth," the tract says. "Your life might end before another hour passes and your soul will be somewhere for eternity." Naturally, a version of the Salvation prayer is included at the end.

This tract scores for unintentional humour, but not much else. It doesn't even live up to its title, not really. It gives a few nasty images of Hell, but not much of Heaven. After Death, What? is more about what to avoid, instead of what to expect.

"Right now, while there is still life in your body, will you repent of your sins...?" Or will you wind up "screaming from the pits of hell" instead? The same questions every tract out there poses, with slightly more hellfire than most. And nobody needs any more hellfire.

Try again, FTL.

Likely to Convert - 2
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 2

And God Answers!

2010-04-09T08:23:00.001-07:00

And another short one from Evangelical Tract Distributors. It's a quote tract, displaying scripture verses that supposedly answer the important questions.

The questions themselves are presented in large red type, the better to draw your attention to them. They start with "Must I Give An Account To God?" and end with "What About Death, Eternity?" Exactly the kind of questions you might ask yourself on your way to work.

That's really all there is to it. A handy reference to have on hand if you've ever wondered "Am I A Very Bad Sinner?" or "Can I Be Saved Now?" For people who don't wonder that stuff, however, this tract won't make much difference. I appreciate this tract's brevity, but brevity alone doesn't make for a religious conversion.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

The Sinner's Prayer

2010-04-09T08:13:00.000-07:00

This one is not a tract so much as a business card. It has a couple of Bible verses, a prayer usually found on the back of every other tract, and a clever little poem ("No Jesus No Peace Know Jesus Know Peace" Catchy, huh?).

And that's it. Not that there's room for anything else. Except for the dove. But that's more of a background watermark.

Simple, efficient and to the point, with all the info you need to get Saved. Of course, with a little more space they could have told the casual reader why he or she needs Salvation. Then again, even tracts that do spell out the terrors of unSavedness rarely manage to be convincing.

Not bad, but not great, that's what I say. Good concept, but if you're going to do a business card tract, make every word, every image and line of scripture count. With so little space, it's all about presentation.

No presentation no converts
Know presentation know converts

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

1000 Years From Now

2010-04-09T08:04:00.001-07:00

Here's another effort from Evangelical Tract Distributors that gets to the point quickly and wastes very little of one's time. The first page asks "what will it matter whether you..." did any of the things on the list that follows "1000 years from Now." Will it matter, for example, if you "travelled by car, or bus?" Or "used solid silver, or plated-ware?" Or "lived in a mansion, or a cottage?" The point being, a thousand years from now you'll be dead, so it really won't matter if you were stinking rich or desperately poor.

"But," says page two, "it will make a mighty big and eternal difference whether you are a Lost Soul or a Saved Soul." Most of that is printed in bold red letters, but the Lost and Saved Soul letters are huge, black and attention-getting. And, to make sure e get it, the words "Heaven or Hell" are in brackets just below. And the words "Lost or Saved" are in brackets below that. And following that are a couple more messages and a Bible quote to hammer the message home.

The last page of the tract is devoted to the usual I'm-a-sinner-Save-me-Jesus prayer.

This tract isn't bad, if a little depressing. A thousand years from now, how many of us will be remembered? And if not, do our lives in fact matter at all? It makes you think... which is the exact wrong thing for a tract like this one to be doing. If you want readers to swallow the notion that Jesus is the only thing in their lives that will ultimately matter, the last thing you want is for them to start thinking! Still, there's bound to be a few readers out there who won't, who will be so depressed about not mattering that they'll latch onto the big black words and get Saved. A few, for sure, but not many.

I wonder, in a thousand years' time, will people still be trying to convert other people to their view of spirituality, or will we have evolved beyond that? Will my reviews still exist on whatever the Internet becomes? And will they still be relevant in the year 3010? Food for thought. And that's more than most tracts provide. Well done.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

The Contract!

2010-03-24T11:44:00.001-07:00

Enough with the soul-winning, I say! Time for a tale of good old-fashioned soul-selling. I haven't enjoyed a good soul-selling story in... well, actually I haven't had the pleasure of a good one. Although Bedazzled with Brendan Fraser was OK.

But this, dear readers, is a soul-selling story from Jack T. Chick! If anyone can work the ol' selling-your-soul-to-the-Devil premise into something whack-a-doodle, he can!

Only he doesn't. Instead it's the same old story, with the soul-selling replacing the topical sin-of-the-week.

The story starts with a hailstorm that decimates the crops of farmer John Freeman and his crippled son, Boy (well, he doesn't get any other name in the tract). John tries to get another loan from the bank, but the nasty Elmer Boggs won't give it to him. John returns home, saying: "I'd sell my soul if I could keep this farm!" And then, as is the convention for this type of story (and because Chick has a limited number of pages to work with), up pops the Devil to make a deal.
He calls himself B. Fox (the 'B', we learn later, stands for Beelzebub!) and he dresses like the Penguin, but you can tell he's the Devil because of those evil arched eyebrows. B tells John there is treasure buried on his property, and he'll show John where it is if he'll agree to split the booty half and half. Oh, and B. Fox also wants John's soul when he dies. Bet you didn't see that one coming, did you? And even though John spoke of selling his soul only six panels ago, he fails to put two and two together and signs the contract in blood.

John Freeman and B. Fox follow the treasure map to the spot "15 paces west of this old tree stump!" If we could actually see that map he has, I bet it would have a big black 'X' to mark the spot! Fox leaves John to do all the digging (he really is evil!), and lo and behold they find the buried treasure. John and Fox head for the bank to cash in their clichee-gotten gains, and get mean old Elmer Boggs fired. "There's nothing like revenge!" Fox says, and we never hear from Boggs again.

Incidentally, we never see John's son Boy ever again, either. I guess John was forced to eat him.

Anyway, John visits his cousin Bob Goode (yes, his name is Goode, you may laugh), who figures out to whom John has sold his soul. "I'd never be so stupid!" Bob says. "You'll never get out of that contract! You're doomed to Hell!"

And if you think that Bob Goode tells John how to get Saved at this point, you'd be wrong! Turns out Bob doesn't know the whole Born-Again bit; he's just "a God-fearing man" who does "as much good as possible... and I avoid all forms of evil!" Must be a swell guy to have at parties.

Ten years later, John's an old man on his deathbed. In only ten years. Come on, Jack! The guy couldn't have been more than 40. That's really sloppy storytelling. John complains to his doctor about the contract he signed with Satan, and that's when the Salvation message kicks in. Wouldn't you know it, the doctor is a Believer, and he tells John how to get Saved. "Then there is a way out!" John says, and he quickly puts Jesus to work reneging on his contract with B. Fox. Then he visits cousin Bob Goode to "share some wonderful news" with him. Bob doesn't like it, and says as much. "You sound like a fanatic!" he says. "I'll make it my way!"
Needless to say, he does not. Three panels later a tree falls on him, and Bob Goode finds himself in Hell. "This is insane..." Bob says. "Why am I here?" Satan, still disguised as B. Fox for some reason, welcomes him. "This will be your new home, Bob Goode, ..... Forever!"

"Who all is in this place?" Bob asks, because the first thing you want to know when faced with eternal damnation is who your neighbours are going to be. B. Fox tells him he has just about everybody, including "lots of good living people like yourself!.... isn't that a surprise?" And the hits keep on coming - John Freeman made it to Heaven! "He slipped out of my hands..." B. Fox says. "It was close!"

So there you have the essential message that Jack Chick wants to convey. John Freeman sold his soul to the Devil, ate his son and got some old geezer fired, but he found Jesus so he gets to go to Heaven. Bob, on the other hand, wasn't Goode enough.

Like most of Jack's work, this one is pretty entertaining. The art is up to Chick's usual standard, and most of the images are very good. Will it convert people? I don't think I'd go that far. I doubt there are many who have actually sold their souls, and the rest of us need a little more proof than The Contract will offer. It's a nice variation on the standard Chick Tract, but in the end I can't help but feel Jack hasn't quite honoured his contract with his readers.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 8
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Man's Most-Asked Question!

2010-01-25T04:44:00.001-08:00

Barefaced arrogance can be quite entertaining in the right context. This cartoon from the Fellowship Tract League assumes that every human being on the planet asks one question more than any other: "How can I get to Heaven??" How pig-headed do you have to be to suggest the question on every man's mind is one specific to your belief system? And, that this question eclipses all others, including but not limited to: Is there a God? What happens when we die? I'd ask those before pondering the existence of Heaven, let alone whether or not I can get there. Or how about: Why are we here? Is there life on other planets? And don't forget: What's for lunch? Are you going to finish that? And, of course, Are we there yet? That last one should be the winner in the most-asked category by virtue of its repetition.

You could argue, I suppose, that the question "How can I get to Heaven??" could be interpreted to imply all forms of the afterlife, and thus relates to all religions. The context of the rest of the tract, however, squashes that argument flat. "The Bible tells you how," the tract says in the very next panel, making clear that only the Judao-Christian Heaven is under discussion. And by the tract's end you see that the Judao part can be scratched, too. "I've always believed in Jesus," the cartoon man says. "I'm not a heathen, you know." So while he's being told that mere belief in Jesus isn't enough, that the requirement for Heaven "is a total commitment to Christ," the rest of the world gets the very clear hint that non-belief in Jesus = heathenism.

Like I said, arrogance.

Man's most asked question, then, is how can one get to the Christian Heaven.

I wonder what Woman's most-asked question is?

But once you get past the arrogance (and sexism), you can better appreciate what this tract has to offer. The cartoons are nice but nothing special, depicting a guy in a suit responding to an 'off-screen' narrator. Pretty much like Are You Good Enough For Heaven?, but the uncredited artist doesn't have Ron Wheeler's level of talent. Still, the artist does manage to convey the man's terror upon learning "Everyone in the world is a... sinner?!?!"

The rest is pretty much what you'd expect. The man is told he needs to get Saved, and by the end he's prayin' his guts out. The cartoons enliven what is in essence a fairly pedestrian tract. It's got the usual fear-mongering (the word HELL appears on page 2 in big, fiery letters) and Salvation-explaining, and the arrogance takes it up a tiny notch in terms of entertainment value and offensive content, but that's it.

Forget the most-asked question. Tract makers need to find a way to spread their message without resorting to the most-preached formula.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

The Great White Throne of Judgment

2010-01-15T10:44:00.001-08:00

"The judgment day is a fixed, definite, future event in the calendar of God," begins this offering from Evangelical Tract Distributors, proving beyond all doubt that you can never have too many adjectives. The author, who remains anonymous, wants us to believe that the Biblical Judgment Day (Revelation 20: 11-15, helpfully printed on the cover) is actually going to happen, and "you'll never laugh the fact away."

I love it when they talk about facts in tracts. The thinking seems to be that if you use the word 'fact', you don't actually need to provide any to back up your claims. This tract certainly doesn't.

But adjectives and 'fact'-deployment aren't the author's only weapons. He also uses repetition. "Every one of God's predicted judgments in the future is going to come true," we are told, twice. In the same paragraph. The author also uses his extensive knowledge of this supposed "fixed, definite, future event". "I know," he says, "you're twenty-four hours nearer to it than you were yesterday." But wait! There's more: "I know you have twenty-four hours less chance to prepare for that judgment than you had last night." Convincing stuff!

And that's just the first two paragraphs. They are very important paragraphs, because they are the only two that actually discuss the Judgment (or, for that matter, the Great White Throne). Two paragraphs out of eight, not including the cover. That's all the titular subject matter gets. No wonder it needed all those adjectives.

The remaining six paragraphs veer off into Rapture territory, starting with the title TOTAL EVACUATION INDICATED in bold red letters. "We are to evacuate the area," the author says, "that the enemy might be completely wiped out." The rest of the tract uses terms like 'the enemy', 'battle', 'soldiers' and others, and speaks of tactics and plans for fighting this enemy, who apparently "will drink the wine of the wrath of God and be tormented forever."

I could take some time to discuss the author's use of Capital Letters on Certain Words to make them seem More Important, but why bother? This tract is its own worst enemy, and hasn't a chance of converting anyone. That's okay, it isn't trying to; the intended audience seems to be Christians who aren't quite devout enough. You know, the ones who don't believe in "the Air Lift, which will deliver many into the Home Country" instead "of Shadow Valley."

Entertainingly melodramatic is about the best thing I can say for The Great White Throne of Judgment. Otherwise, the tossing of this tract into a blue bin is a fixed, definite, future event.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

All This I Did For Thee

2009-12-09T10:43:00.000-08:00

This small effort from the Fellowship Tract League would be utterly forgettable if it weren't for that cover. I mean, look at it, for God's sake. It's a guy (presumably Jesus) who's had the snot kicked out of him. Even his head is bleeding! This is one of the most horrible images I've ever seen on a tract, and I've seen a lot of these things. Now I don't need to rent Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion Of The Christ. I just need to look at this thing. Yuck!

The rest of the tract, like I said, is utterly forgettable. It's a simple quote tract, using the usual bits of scripture to tell the reader they need to get Saved. The last page offers readers a choice between accepting and rejecting Jesus, complete with tick boxes. What's with the tick box trend, honestly? This is at least the second if not the third time I've seen this gimmick. Are the authors of these things really expecting readers to tick a box and send it in? This one is, apparently - they ask readers to do so, and provide space for them to fill in their names, addresses and ages.

But enough about that boring stuff. Let's get back to that cover!
What a marvelous use of black and white and only one colour - red! I also like the way Jesus' face is hidden in shadow. Wow, that guy really went through a lot to Save you. At least, that's what the authors and/or artist wants you to think.

Points for attention-grabbing, League. If only the tract inside could live up to the promise of that cover. I'm sure Bloody Jesus wouldn't be too happy knowing that these few verses were the best the author could come up with to use with his beaten image.

Please, League! Try to do better. Half-assed tracts make Bloody Jesus cry.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Apes, Lies And Ms. Henn: Li'l Susy 2

2009-09-20T17:48:00.000-07:00

Prepare yourselves for another wild adventure with Jack Chick's half-pint heroine, Li'l Susy! This is her second appearance in the Chickiverse, and while it doesn't have the evil hatred of The Birds And The Bees, it has all of The Devil's Night's wackiness. And, as the title suggests, this tract also marks the first appearance of the witch-like Ms. Henn.

The title also suggests, in its less-than-subtle way, that it will take a crack at the theory of evolution. Like In The Beginning (which this tract references), Apes, Lies And Ms. Henn seeks to convince readers that science is wrong and the Bible is right when it comes to the origin of our species.

The tract opens with Ms. Henn's introduction as the new teacher for Li'l Susy's class. Wrinkled and scary is the only way to describe her. "We're going to have such fun together!" she says. "...as long as you do what I say!" Ms. Henn wastes no time leaping into a lesson on evolution, saying that "scientists have PROVEN it!" Li'l Susy's having none of that, and she tells her friend Timmy "that's a LIE!"

And I pause this review here to express my umbrage at having a version of my name in a Chick Tract. How very bothersome.

Anyway, Ms. Henn is less than pleased with Li'l Susy's outburst. "Are you calling me... a liar?" Henn says. "No, ma'am..." Li'l Susy replies. "You're calling God a liar." Oh, you just just know this isn't going to end well. Ms. Henn drags Li'l Susy out of the class, wags her finger at her, and makes the most devastating threat Jack Chick could dream up. "Go back in there and keep your mouth shut..." Ms. Henn says, "or else!"

Yep, she actually says "Or else."

After school, Li'l Susy gets busy putting the Jesus moves on Timmy. She tells him evolution is a lie "created by the devil to keep kids out of heaven," and Timmy freaks out. "I want to go to heaven when I die!" he says. "What am I supposed to do?" Well, that's just the opening Li'l Susy is waiting for! I'm sure you can guess the rest.

I find it interesting to note the contempt Jack Chick seems to have for the school system. Embodied in the form of Ms. Henn, education is portrayed as rigid, scary, and not a little bit ugly, too. "If I tell you we came from apes..." she says, "I expect you to believe me... right?" Well, yes. That's what school is for. "She's wrong!" Li'l Susy says on the tract's last page. "But she's our teacher and we have to respect her." A fine sentiment, Susy, but one you conveniently forgot earlier when you interrupted the class. You're slipping, Jack. Try to be consistent with your rules.

This tract would be hilarious if it weren't aimed at kids. Okay, it's still hilarious, but I shake my fist at it while I laugh. I can see that it's ridiculous, but a kid might find it frightening. Though the tract doesn't depict or describe Hell, it does say that "most people will end up" there. "Susy, this is scary," Timmy says, letting young readers know there is every reason to be afraid. The last sentence of the tract hammers that fear home: "If you believe in Evolution instead of Jesus, you'll end up in hell."

Whatever, Jack. Just so long as they're far away from you.

Likely to Convert - 4
Artwork - 9
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 7
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

In The Beginning

2009-09-12T09:33:00.001-07:00

Here's Jack Chick at his most unintentionally hilarious and far-out wacky. In The Beginning shows the Biblical six days of Creation, as told by recurring Chick character Bible Bob to his dinosaur-loving pal Jason.

"Since so many scientists contradict each other," Bob says, "I found this (the Bible) to be the only source I can trust." Naturally, neither Bob nor Jack Chick present any conflicting scientific theories to back up this statement, and Jason the Dinosaur Guy doesn't question it.

Why is Jason the Dinosaur Guy? Because when we first meet him in the first panel, he's carrying a toy brontosaurus and claiming it "lived 145 million years ago" according to his teacher.
"Your teacher's been brain washed," Bob tells him. "145 million years?... Those guys are only guessing." Not one for carbon dating or paleontology, is our Bob. He goes on to launch his sermon on Creation, claiming he can tell Jason "to the exact day" when the dinosaurs were created.

Remember that, it'll come up again later.

Anyway, Bob details Days One through Six, telling the foolish science-believing Jason "what really happened." On Day 3, when "dry land appeared with grass and trees yielding fruit," Jason spots a weak point in the story and asks how the plants could grow without the sun. "Haw Haw, I gotcha!" he says, but Bob is ready for that. "God made the sun, moon and stars" on Day 4, he tells Jason, adding that "they had to be real days or the plants and trees would have died."

Let's look at that exchange for a second. First, one has to wonder why God made the Sun after he'd made the plants, not before. It would make sense to do it that way, but that isn't what's Written. The Bible's the only source that can be trusted, you know.

Second, it's just interesting that Bob points out a scientific fact - that the plants would have died if the Sun hadn't been created the very next day - to 'prove' the Biblical days were real days. I guess scientists don't "contradict each other over that.

Third, the whole thing should be moot, since on Day One God said "Let there be light" and "divided the light (day) from the darkness (night). So there was light, and there was night and day, but there was no Sun or stars until Day 4. So what was this light, exactly? It obviously wasn't the right kind of light to feed the flowers!

Day 5 gave us fish and birds, and on Day 6 we got "cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth," including (according to Bob) dinosaurs. Oh, and Adam, too. And Adam wasn't "a prehistoric man like in textbooks," because "there was nothing 'prehistoric'. That word was created to brainwash us."

Here's where Chick offers something unique among tracts: some actual evidence to back up his claims. He provides the following photograph of man and dinosaur footprints together, found in Glen Rose, Texas.
"God doesn't lie," Bob tells us. Maybe, Bob, but photographers sure do. I looked this dubious claim up online, and numerous sites branded the Glen Rose footprints as false, false, false.

Now, remember how Bob said he knew "to the exact day" when dinosaurs were created? Jason asks "can you trace back in time when Adam lived?" and Bob replies "Roughly 6000 years ago."

Roughly, Bob? That doesn't sound very exact to me. And don't go telling me it was Day Six. That's meaningless if the next several thousand years are little more than guesswork.

The rest of the tract gets into the whole everyone's-a-sinner-and-must-be-Saved bit. Bob tells the story of the forbidden fruit, and brings Eve into the story. "God created Eve to help him (Adam)," Bob says, igniting a firestorm of sexism the world is still trying to put out.

For sheer immature fun, here's a picture of Ol' Faceless fondling Adam's bum.

Well, that's what it looks like to me.

We all know the next bit of the story; the serpent tempts Eve, Eve tempts Adam, and they eat the damn fruit. What's unique in Chick's depiction of it is the look of the serpent itself. Check this out...

It's a snake with arms! Some kind of standing, waving reptile! That's one terrible lizard. A... dinosaur???

Anyway, God boots Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, Death enters the world, and everyone on Earth thereafter is a sinner headed for Hell. Jason freaks out, "cuz I sin all the time," so Bob tells him about Jesus. Jason gets Saved, and the tract ends abruptly right there.

This is one of my favourite Chick Tracts. It's full of mind-blowing lunacy, with lots of laugh-out-loud moments. The bent logic with the plants is also hilarious.

I have to say, though, that the story is lacking. Half of it is 'proving' what 'really happened', and the other half is the stuff about sin. It splits the narrative focus, and goes from 'history' lesson to preaching. I think the tract would have been much stronger if Jason had already been a believer, albeit one who has been 'fooled' by science. Then the whole thing could have been about 'proving' the Bible correct.

But that's just my view. Chick often splits his tracts up like this, so it's nothing new.

This tract scores for entertainment value, though I can't say it'll win many converts. It's only offensive to scientists "who laugh at God," but I doubt many will be offended.

"There was no Big Bang," Bob says. "So let's see what really happened."

Sure was fun, Bob. Thanks a million years!

Likely to Convert - 2
Artwork - 9
Ability to Hold Interest - 10
Unintentional Hilarity - 10
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

The Hour Is Coming: Heaven Or Hell? Time Is Running Out

2009-09-10T16:59:00.000-07:00

As Bible verse-quoting tracts go, this one from Evangelical Tract Distributors is one of the laziest. At least, like the subjects of my last two reviews, it wastes very little of the reader's time.

The middle two pages are Bible verses, lacking even the title/translations that made First The Bad News... so entertaining. I guess they are all in support of the time-running-out theme, but that is left to readers to decide.

The cover contains the overlong title and a picture of a yellow clock, the hour hand pointing to 11. I guess it's representative of time running out, with midnight (or lunchtime) only one hour away. The cover also has some random sentences at the bottom, instructing readers to "flee from the wrath to come" and informing them that "today is the Day of Salvation."

The last page foregoes the usual prayer for Salvation in favour of some really bad poetry. In fact, poetry is too good a word for what this tract's author came up with. "Almost is but to fail, Almost cannot avail, Doom comes at last." WTF does that mean? If you're trying to Save people's souls, don't waste time confusing them with crap.

This tract appears to have been thrown together without a whole lot of thought. It's as if the people at Evangelical Tract Distributors had to come up with one at the last minute to fill their quota, and didn't really care how it came out. "Ooh, ooh, I've got some clip art of a clock," an ETD person might have said. "Quick, somebody grab me some verses about End Times stuff and I'll write some poetry real quick."

The Hour may be coming, and it may take less than a minute to read, but no one should have to give even a second to this pathetic drivel.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 0
Ability to Hold Interest - 0
Unintentional Hilarity - 0
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Paid In Full

2009-08-26T06:30:00.001-07:00

This one, from the Fellowship Tract League, uses more or less the same format and formula as First The Bad News.... It's a bunch of Bible quotes and/or passages that fit the theme of our sin debt having been paid.

Each group of quotes begins with a bold, all-caps title question, like: DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOUR SIN DEBT WILL COST YOU FOR ALL ETERNITY?

It occurs to me that if it's a sin debt, then we need to come up with a lot of sins to pay it off. But why quibble about the choice of words when the format of the tract gets the reader to the end just as fast as First The Bad News...?

Paid In Full ends with two choices, and two tick-boxes for readers to indicate their choice. You can "trust Jesus Christ and his finished payment" or "reject the payment of Jesus Christ." Considering the theme, why use tick boxes? A bill format with payment options would have been more appropriate, and visually more appealing.

As with so many tracts, Paid In Full offers nothing new. Its format and brevity make it a quick read, with minimal time wasted. Not much of a compliment, I know. But then, Paid In Full isn't much of a tract.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 3
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 0
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

First The Bad News...

2009-08-26T06:20:00.001-07:00

Lately I've been enjoying tracts that either aren't repetitive (not many) or are at least short. This new offering from Evangelical Tract Distributors fits the latter bill.

First The Bad News... is a collection of quotes compiled by Mrs. Don Brill, each with a rating of either Bad News or Good News. Each quote also has an all-caps title that serves to translate the lines of scripture from Biblical into English. For example - BAD NEWS: WE DESERVE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. "And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the Lake of Fire." Revelation 20:15.

Some of the all-caps title-translations are redundant, like this one - GOOD NEWS: CHRIST CAME TO SAVE SINNERS. "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

The last page provides the standard Salvation prayer, cementing my impression that this tract offers nothing new. Like I said, however, it is a short tract, and doesn't bore the reader with some contrived story. I like brevity in tracts - it wastes so much less of a reader's time.

Likely to Convert - 2
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 1
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

The Christian's Manner of Dress

2009-08-26T05:58:00.001-07:00

Here's a rare one that isn't trying to convert readers. It isn't even targeted at non-believers. This tract, credited to the Rev. Ejj and published by Gospel Tract and Bible Society, is aimed squarely at Christians.

And I do mean square. This tract aims to convince the Christian reader that "there is a discreet way of dress that befits the Christian and his high calling." After all, a person's dress sense "is like a window providing a look into his heart," and "the true disciples of Christ have always been known for their humble dress."

Naturally, Satan won't have any of this, and so he "uses various methods to undermine God's standard of modest dress." What are those 'various methods'? The tract doesn't say. It talks about clothing "worn mainly as an ornament or display" and "suggestive attire" that "draws attention to the human form and promotes lustful thoughts and desires," but it doesn't directly tie these fashion choices back to Satan. I guess it's meant to be implied.

Another no-no? "Clothing that is tightly fitted" because it arouses "the passions of the opposite sex," which leads "to immorality.

Rev. Ejj draws mainly from the writings of Paul for these clothing directives, and makes clear Paul's statement in Corinthians 6:19-20 that a Christian "is to glorify God in his body and in his spirit."

In 1 Timothy 2:8-10, he goes after women, telling them to "adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." Paul is far from the only sexist bastard in the Bible; Peter also has a few things to say. In 1 Peter 3:3-4 he says "that women should shun 'that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold,'" etc.

And guess what? Cross-dressing is right out. "All that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Seems pretty strict, but then "even a proud look is an abomination to God." Fashion appeals "to man's vain pride," and when a person's fashion desires "are gratified, man becomes a slave of fashion rather than a servant of God."

So what are the words that best describe what a Christian's clothing should be? Modesty, simplicity, comely, humble. Someone should tell the Pope. And the cardinals, bishops and priests. And not a few televangelists.

This tract appears dull and lifeless to the eye, being simple text upon green paper. If one invests the time to read it, however, it does prove entertaining (and offensive to both women and transgendered people). Since there is no mention of Hell or Salvation or even Jesus himself, it has the distinction of being somewhat unique among tracts. If it had been done in cartoon form, it could have been brilliant. Something to think about, Rev. Ejj.

Then again, maybe the lack of "outward adorning" and "costly array" is the author's way of driving his point home. Subtle, Ejj, but one can take that too far. Christians get bored like everybody else, you know.

"God's will is that the human form should be covered, not displayed," and "a holy beauty will radiate from those who are surrendered to God's will." Such a lovely use of words, considering his message is that fashion is bad, but human skin is badder. I wish Rev. Ejj all the success in the world in converting his fellow Christians to the true path of uninteresting clothes. After all, we all know the Devil wears Prada.

Likely to Convert - N/A
Likely to Change Christian Fashion - 2
Artwork - 0
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

Are You 100% Sure?

2009-08-16T07:47:00.001-07:00

Half the size of regular tracts, this offering from Faithway Baptist Church offers the soul absolute certainty of its afterlife destination with only half the paper. Like 7 Things That Will Not Get You Into Heaven, it gets points for producing less waste while having nothing new to say.

"All men, including you," are sinners who must "be born again through Jesus Christ" in order to avoid "an eternal Hell." If you do, "you can be 100% sure that you are going to Heaven." Seems that "nothing else will do... not church membership, not baptism, not confirmation, not communion." That last bit is a lot like 7 Things, except there's only four of them. And two of those items don't appear in 7 Things's list. Which means it could have been 9 Things.

Whatever. They both use less paper, and in the end that's what really counts.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

7 Things That Will Not Get You Into Heaven

2009-08-16T07:41:00.001-07:00

This tract is nothing special, but it is short. Published by Grace & Truth, it is only two pages, back-to-back. The title alone takes up a quarter of the allotted space.

The second quarter is devoted to those titular seven things: going to church, being baptized, keeping the commandments, performing religious duties, doing good works, going to confession and having good morals. The rest of the tract tells us the usual Jesus-is-the-only-way message.

While boring and trite, this tract saves on paper while simultaneously saving readers precious time. We have nothing new to say, the tract tells us, but at least we say it quickly. And less paper means it is better for the environment, too. I only have to crumple up half as much before tossing it in a blue bin.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Why Run The Risk?

2009-08-02T10:11:00.001-07:00

I've been out of the biz for a few months now because the pickings have been, well... predictable. Heh, most tracts are predictable to some extent, but some are worse than others.

This offering, however, takes it over the top via a trip down looney lane to paranoid park. "Did you ever stop to think that you are running a risk every time you get into a car and go shopping?" Not lately, I haven't. This tract, written by C. Darling and published by Grace & Truth, seeks to scare readers by suggesting that death is everywhere, and anything and everything can kill you. "People have met early deaths by riding bicycles, crossing busy streets, eating the wrong kinds of foods, receiving bee stings, using harmful chemicals, etc."

Scared yet? How about this previously unknown fact: "The death toll from all causes remains at 100%." Yikes! Do you know what this means? It means "there is no escaping death."

So what's the point of scaring the pants off us with all this death talk? Easy. C. Darling wants us to "turn to Christ to be truly and totally saved." Like we didn't know that was coming. You could die from a bee sting while riding your bike through busy streets into harmful chemicals while eating the wrong kinds of food, so you'd better get Saved now while you are still alive.

"Why risk spending eternity in that place reserved for the devil and his angels, when you can spend eternity with God in the joys of heaven?" Maybe because I'm laughing too hard to take you seriously, C. Darling.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 8
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

How To Get To Heaven: For Black Readers

2009-04-25T13:02:00.000-07:00

A trend that pops up here and there in the tract world is the re-publishing of certain tracts for black readers. I've seen a number of Chick Tracts 'remade' this way (ie - Somebody Goofed re-published as Oops), but a few others have followed his lead.

Remember my review of How To Get To Heaven, from the Fellowship Tract League? Here's the same tract, with five panels re-done with dark-skinned characters replacing the original's yellow-haired white kids.

Two things come to mind when I look at these remakes. 1. Do the tract writers really think black people won't get the message otherwise? And 2, doesn't it say something that there are so few black people in the original tracts that the writers felt a black version was necessary?

And if the League was going to go to the trouble of making an updated version, couldn't they at least have fixed the original's flaws? Nope, Hell is still "a terrible place where fire is." The black kids do look slightly more pained at the idea of burning "in hell FOREVER" than their white counterparts, but not by much. I guess that's a sign of equality - the League will give black readers exactly the same crap that white readers have been getting.

Still, it's good to know that tract makers are willing to be inclusive, and don't think of Heaven as a whites-only club. Otherwise, this tract is just as lame as its predecessor.

Likely to Convert - 2
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Who, Me?

2009-03-31T07:45:00.000-07:00

I thought that, after the heavy and serious nature of the last few posts, it was high time to lighten things up a little. And who better to provide a bit of hilarity in tract form than the nearly-always reliable Jack T. Chick?

But this, dear readers, is no ordinary Chick Tract. This one is for timid Christians who want to Save people but don't quite have the stones. Jack's solution? His own tracts! Yes, this tract is an advert for his other publications, to be shamelessly distributed among those stoneless Christians in the hopes of converting them into Chick Publications customers.

First, Jack shows with his own unique style how hard it is to witness, why most methods (like gospel radio and TV shows) won't work, and why other tracts also meet with failure ("too many words"). Then, he tells an interesting story about where he got the idea to draw his cartoons. "A missionary told us that the Communists in China had developed a powerful way to reach the multitudes." What, I hear you asking, was this "powerful way?"

It seems "their agents watched our children spend hours reading comic books." Note the evil-looking Chinese guy with the camera in this image. Hmm... an adult watching (and photographing) children? That's creepy in all the wrong ways, Jack.

Anyway, "the communists spent millions of dollars printing their propaganda in a cartoon format," and "the results were extremely successful." Apparently people will believe anything if it comes in cartoon form. Think I'll go fight crime with my superpowers when I'm done this review.

So, seeing the success of the Chinese propaganda, Jack made his illustrated gospel tracts to spread God's Word. Hmm. So for the Chinese it's propaganda, but for Jack it's God's Word, eh? I'm certain he missed the irony on this one.

According to Jack, his tracts succeeded "beyond all expectations" because "people find them IRRESISTIBLE!"

If he does say so himself, which he does.

The rest of this tract tells the reader how they can go about witnessing with Jack's work, and gives suggestions on where they could be placed. Jack also devotes two pages to quotes from people who got Saved reading his work, because "NOBODY can resist illustrated Chick tracts!"

The back cover provides information on how to get your hands on some, so you can have "a successful and satisfying personal ministry". Chick tracts are "available at your favorite Christian bookstore," and a phone number and website are provided in case they are not.

As tracts go, this is a unique item. It's fairly inoffensive (except of course to the Chinese), and it is amusing to see just how highly Jack thinks of himself and his product. Doesn't the Bible have a few things to say about pride? Still, he has a valid point - his tracts make it very easy for shy people to spread Jack Chick's word.

Likely to Convert - N/A
Artwork - 6
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 3

Marriage And Homosexuality: A Christian Response Part 4

2009-03-27T08:37:00.001-07:00

CHAPTER 4: THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

This section has one or two good points to make. "The church must repent of its pharisaic attitude toward confession of sins" and "of hostility toward homosexual people." Of course, those points would sound better if the first paragraph didn't contain this gem: "Strong marriages would go a long way to preventing more children being exposed to the confusion and dangerous health risks involved in homosexuality."

Still, they are trying. The writers want Christians "to show compassion to the homosexual community" so that gay people might eventually be "won into the Kingdom of God." To do this, Christians "should be aware of three different groups within the homosexual community: the militants, the moderates, and the repentant." They give descriptions and advice on how to approach each group, and to their credit they advocate love in each case. They even take a stab at humour when describing 'militant' gays, who have "rigid viewpoints" and are "intolerant toward opposing viewpoints" - "sounds like a description a homosexual might give of a Christian!" Ha, ha. Nicely placed joke, in that it distracts readers from the authors' own rigid and intolerant viewpoints, such as stating repeatedly that their view is 'the truth'.

"Repentant homosexuals need a tremendous amount of support and encouragement" when leaving their 'sinful' lifestyle, because they may be "frightened, vulnerable and lonely" when they leave their "network of support and identity." The authors urge readers to "encourage, love and support" repenting gays, and "not allow our distaste for an unnatural behaviour to get in the way." Gee, thanks.

"Moderate" gays "share the same dreams and worries as everyone else." Wow, it's like they're human beings or something! "We need to approach them just as we would anyone else: offering Jesus' saving grace." After all, "unless the Holy Spirit is at the centre of a person's life, change in sexual orientation is irrelevant."

CHAPTER 5: WHAT YOU CAN DO

This section encourages readers to write to the government, to newspapers and other media outlets to express "your views on marriage" and "promote culture-saving values in society." Included are several (now outdated) MP addresses and emails, and advice on how to write and prepare letters (such as removing "unnecessarily aggressive words and phrases"). Readers are also asked to "reach out to homosexuals," and the authors provide names and websites for "ministries that are equipped to help homosexuals change their orientation."

Other suggestions range from making presentations at churches and supporting changes in government policies. Also, readers should try and strengthen their marriages and encourage young people who are considering marriage. Wouldn't want any gayness to sneak in, would we?

CHAPTER 6: RESOURCES
CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDED LINKS
CHAPTER 8: BIBLIOGRAPHY

These last few sections end the book, for which I (and, I imagine, you) am profoundly grateful. This has been a long , grueling review, and I'm glad to be almost done.

The Resources section advertises books and booklets on related subject-matter. Titles include "Bringing Up Boys," "Someone I Love Is Gay," "A Strong Delusion: Confronting the 'Gay Christian' Movement," and "A Parents' Guide To Preventing Homosexuality." I had no idea such books existed, but I can't say I'm surprised. All books are available from Focus On The Family (again, no surprise).

Following the book advertisement, the book provides a list of Recommended Links, contact information for Focus On The Family, and a bibliography with end-notes. The lack of surprise again comes to the fore, as three of their listed references are books advertised in the preceding section. Interestingly, "A Parent's Guide To Preventing Homosexuality" was published by InterVarsity, the same guys who published "Homosexual Struggle", the last booklet I reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The booklet doesn't actually have a concluding section, but it doesn't really need one. It presents itself as a helpful guide for Christians who are concerned about the definition of marriage, and it advocates love and compassion while condemning bigotry and hatred. No doubt the authors feel they are on the side of good. After all, they do have THE TRUTH, don't they?

Well, no, they don't. They have their truth, and the arrogance to insist it applies to everybody. The conclusion I draw from this book is that change is happening, and many Christians (the authors among them) feel scared and threatened. This book wasn't published to protect families, but to protect an old and outdated way of seeing the world that is under bombardment from present-day reality. Plus, the sneaky playing around with terminology (like Basic Human Rights) and raising of irrelevant subject-matter (the freedom of speech issue) add to this book an air of desperation that is just pitiful. I can't quite call this hate literature, but it comes awfully close.

The booklet opens with this question: "How are we as Christians to respond?" My answer: leave gay people alone. Please. We've all had enough of this. Just leave them alone.

Likely to Convert - N/A
Likely to Convert Gays - N/A
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 6
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 9

Marriage And Homosexuality: A Christian Response Part 3

2009-03-25T07:38:00.000-07:00

Parts 1 & 2 dealt with the uncredited authors' discussion about marriage (Chapter 1) and homosexuality (Chapter 2), along with their dubious attempts at 'facts' and 'truth'. One of their tactics involved something I call linguistic gymnastics, whereby they attack a word (like homophobia) and tell readers the definition of that word isn't quite what they think it is. This has the effect of distracting the reader from the actual topic at hand. The linguistic gymnastics continue here, and the true purpose of this book (in my view) is revealed.

CHAPTER 3: THE CHALLENGE TO MARRIAGE

First, there is this statement: "Canadians who speak out against redefining marriage to include same-sex couples are not denying anyone their basic human rights." The authors devote half a page to 'proving' this statement, and they start by pointing out that the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights "makes no mention whatsoever of any rights based on sexual orientation," even though "Article 16 clearly establishes that men and women of full age have a right to marriage." Oh, so... gay people have a right to marry, just not to each other? I don't get it.

For me, it comes down to an issue of semantics. Can straight people get married? Yes. If marriage hadn't been redefined in Canada, would gay people be able to get married? No. It may not be a 'basic human right', but it is something one group of people can do that another group should also be able to do. Saying they aren't being denied something when they are, because the word chosen to define that denied thing isn't necessarily the right one, is slippery, sneaky and underhanded.

Since "there is no proof (gays) have been denied their basic human rights," the writers ponder, what is the real reason they want the definition of marriage changed? "It seems what gay activists are looking for is acceptance and affirmation of their behaviour." Why is that a problem? "Changing the definition of marriage will further erode the freedom of people who view homosexual behaviour as morally wrong to express their views and act on those views in everyday life."

In other words, if gay people gain more acceptance, it will be a lot harder for bigots to express their bigotry. "It's already happening now," the authors warn, citing seven examples in which Canadian religious freedoms were done harm over the gay issue (including a situation from 1999 when "Focus on the Family experienced a similar form of discrimination").

The seven examples are thought-provoking, and raise intriguing issues. Have Christians, in fact, been discriminated against? Is their freedom of speech threatened? After all, if I have the right to write this blog, don't they have the right to produce the material I critique? All very interesting, and fodder for another Focus on the Family book. However, when it comes to this book, all seven examples are irrelevant. This book is about marriage and homosexuality, not freedom of speech. I suspect this section was put into this book simply to score points with devout readers.

The same can also be said for the next couple of pages, where the authors examine a few social experiments (such as the no-fault divorce laws of 1968) that played around with the definition of marriage. In the author's opinion, the experiments were failures. Therefore, they seem to be saying, society will crumble if further changes are made (or kept in place) regarding marriage's definition. "If the opposite-sex definition of marriage is eliminated, what assurances are there that the monogamous definition of marriage will not be next?" Oh, PLEASE!

And "what about the children?" Yep, they have two pages blasting gay people's ability to parent. Luckily, their efforts lead to the best unintended laugh. They quote MP Svend Robinson telling a 2003 House of Commons Justice Committee that you don't need a man to create a family because "a turkey baster will do just fine." The authors actually respond with: "The obvious reality is that in the life of a child, a turkey baster cannot replace a father." I don't know Svend personally, nor was I present when he made the 'turkey baster' remark. However, I feel confident that he was not suggesting a turkey baster could teach kids to ride a bike, help them with their homework, go to PTA meetings, or walk a daughter down the aisle on her wedding day.

For me, the entire discussion on whether a man and a woman are the best possible parents is kind of moot. There are plenty of husband and wife teams that suck, where one or both are alcoholics or abusive, or they just plain get it wrong. Okay, I have no studies or statistics to back this up, but I have many friends who've told me of the abuses and neglect they've suffered under the so-called perfect system of one man and one woman. There are no perfect parents out there, but there are plenty of them who do the best they possibly can.

That's it for Part 3. In Part 4 I'll look at 'The Christian Response'.

Marriage And Homosexuality: A Christian Response Part 2

2009-03-23T15:12:00.000-07:00

In Part 1 I introduced this book, and looked at the section dealing with Marriage. Chapter 2 deals with the author's ideas about gay people, and it is here they start to get nasty.

CHAPTER 2: HOMOSEXUALITY

"Homosexuality is in violation of God's plan for humanity," the authors tell us, offering four verses that confirm this view (without actually providing the text for those verses, nor the context that goes with them). Then they proceed to give us "the facts about homosexuality." It's the usual Christian stuff: nobody is born gay, gay people can be 'cured', "homosexual male relationships are rarely monogamous," the gay lifestyle is "intrinsically more risky than heterosexual practices," etc...

The writers cite studies and books that agree with them, naturally. A few of those studies and books were even published recently. Nine of them, however, were published over fifteen years ago, and one source goes all the way back to 1972. Call me crazy, but I'd be a lot more convinced if all their sources were published within five years of this book's publication date (which isn't given, but I suspect it came out in 2004 or 2005). Also, given the obvious bias of this book, I'm extremely wary to take the authors' word on what those studies say.

What's worse are the things the authors say without any kind of supporting material, like this statement: "Homosexuality is intrinsically misguided and sinful, independent of anyone's response to it." The authors' attitude seems to be that anything a gay person tells you is wrong, but we don't need to prove we're right because you probably already agree with us.

The writers also demonstrate a knack for something I'll call linguistic gymnastics. When addressing the issue of homophobia, the authors say "the word 'homophobia' confuses the issue," because it implies "that all opposition to homosexuality stems from bigotry and irrational hatred." No, they tell us, "the vast majority of people" oppose same-sex relationships because of their "deeply held religious, moral or philosophical beliefs." Oh, that's so much better.

Similar wordplay is used to say that their condemnation of the gay lifestyle does not incite hate crimes. "Simply arguing against certain behaviour does not incite violence," they say, adding that "no one kills liars, even though most preachers argue against it." Yeah, but no one tries to deny marriage to liars, or drum them out of the military. And while it's true that "bigots need no sermons to motivate them to hatred," anti-gay sermons and scriptures certainly do not help matters. "Most Christians never commit or condone violence against gays," the writers say, and one hopes that this statement is true. However, the authors do not back that statement up with any study or fact.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced by the flawed methodology used to describe what a 'homosexual' is, and I hope most thinking people will be, too. Chapter 2 seems slapped together, relying on highly questionable data (or nothing at all) to provide "a Biblically based understanding of homosexuality." I suspect this chapter was intended to make non-thinking readers feel they've been informed about things they already believe, so they'll be more willing to accept what comes next. In Part 3 I'll look at Chapter 3: The Challenge To Marriage.

Marriage And Homosexuality: A Christian Response Part 1

2009-03-21T12:55:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a long one. So long, in fact, that I've decided to split it into four parts. The book itself, published by familyfacts.ca, an initiative of Focus On The Family Canada, contains eight sections, two of which I'll deal with in each post. Part 1 will focus on the Introduction and Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION
Marriage And Homosexuality was written to help Christians "counter the carefully crafted arguments of same-sex marriage advocates" so they can "confidently respond in a Christ-like manner." The Introduction talks of "having to defend marriage," an institution that "has changed little over the centuries." In fact, "Christians are rightfully alarmed" now that same-sex couples are can marry in Canada. Scary stuff, huh? But "what is so important about marriage that it is worth protecting?"

CHAPTER 1: MARRIAGE

The writers of this book (who aren't credited) let the reader know early on that they believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. They call marriage "the foundation for every civilized society" since "time immemorial", and state that "marriage is God's creation." They say the Bible "describes various harmonious relationships within nature - night and day, land and sea, male and female," as if the issue at hand were really that simple.

When Adam and Eve got the boot from Eden over the whole tree of knowledge thing, "evil entered the world" and "marriage moved away from its ideal". God had to give humankind "specific laws to provide parameters for appropriate expressions of sexuality and marriage." The no-nos? "Adultery, incest, homosexual intercourse and intercourse with animals." Nice company for gay people to be in, huh? These condemned acts "provide a definition of the form of marriage that cannot be put aside." This kind of reasoning only holds up if readers believe the Bible really is The Truth, and the authors assume they do.

After all, if you believe as they do, the authors can get away with all kinds of sweeping generalizations and statements of supposed 'truth' without having to back them up with anything resembling hard evidence. Marriage, they say, "is essentially a part of natural law" and that "marriage has changed very little over the years." Which years are they talking about? And which culture? I don't remember getting a dowry when I married my wife, nor did I solidify any business dealings or gain vast tracts of land. Arranged marriages still take place in some countries, but if anything that shows the diversity still present in the institution.

The authors aren't above using a 12-year-old's words to further their agenda, either. "I want a mom and a dad," an orphaned child named Shelby told reporters at the public launch of a website designed to help children like him find adoptive parents. The authors claim that the kid's words point out how universal a male-and-female marriage is. After all, Shelby said "what every child instinctively longs for." Was that really what the kid was saying, or is that merely the authors' conclusion?

The book goes on to point out the benefits of marriage, and makes more sweeping statements. They also talk about marriage in history, and seem to say that since marriage "has changed very little" there's no reason to change it now. It's not as if anything else has changed on this flat world of ours.

That's it for Part 1. Join me next time for Chapter 2, where the authors display their 'knowledge' about homosexuality.

Homosexual Struggle

2009-02-21T12:20:00.001-08:00

Homosexual Struggle, published by InterVarsity Press and credited to an author named Nancy (no last name), is one of the saddest and most heart-wrenching pieces of religious writing I've yet read. It's written from Nancy's point of view, and chronicles her struggle to deny who she is.

Sorry, that's harsh. It is Nancy's choice, after all, to fight against her sexual orientation. It is a choice that has caused her a great deal of pain and suffering, however, and I can't help but feel she's made the wrong one.

Why? Because she sounds so unhappy throughout the booklet's 27 pages. She uses words like frustrated, hurting and lonely to describe her battle with the will of her deity.

The story starts in Nancy's high-school years, when she describes herself as having been "pretty 'straight'". She dated guys, but never had sex with them. "Somehow my parents' religious morality had rubbed off on me." It did more than that; she gave her life to Christ in her junior year, and now had "a more compelling reason to say no to guys."

Then, during her senior year, she met a Christian girl named Sue, and before long "we became sexually involved." Interesting that her parents' morality, followed by Christ's "compelling reasons", kept her away from boys, but when the opportunity for a lesbian relationship came along all that reasonable morality went out the window!

But not for long. They were both Christians, after all, and they both agreed that the Bible forbade their love. Nancy "made the very difficult choice of following Jesus rather than my feelings," but Sue "chose to continue to pursue a gay life."

In college, Nancy tried to convince herself that her relationship with Sue was just a one-time thing. She could not, however, and her "first couple of years in college were incredibly frustrating and lonely." She "felt like a freak", afraid of the judgments of the Christians she hung out with. At last she was able to open up to a "casual acquaintance named Kathy," then to her friend and Bible study co-leader Steve, who had been having "similar struggles with homosexuality." That gave Nancy some comfort - "For the first time I didn't feel quite as alone in my agonies." - but she was still caught in a desperate struggle for self. Sure, she was able to talk about her "agonies", but they were still agonies.

For example, Nancy describes her inner struggled as a "civil war" between the will of God, as she understood Him, and what her gay friends told her was her "'true' sexual identity and personhood." In the end, she decided "only in a relation ship of submission to (God) will I be truly satisfied." Did it help? Not much, it would seem. While she was "much more willing to obey" God, she "found that the problems didn't get easier to handle." Nancy felt "very uncomfortable around guys" and was "afraid of getting too close (emotionally) with girls", and it all "added up to one incredibly lonely person." This led her to "live with my loneliness and not pursue the 'comfort' of physical intimacy." After all, did not John White say in his book Eros Defiled: The Christian And Sexual Sin, "Would you despise intimacy with the Almighty in insisting on more of human intimacy?" Yes, apparently he did. And interestingly, Eros Defiled was also published by InterVarsity Press.

"Then there were problems of lust and sexual fantasies," Nancy goes on, proving (to me, anyway) that "intimacy with the Almighty" isn't enough for a flesh-and-blood human being. "I struggled with lust toward nearly anybody, male or female," and "the Bible didn't seem to offer me much hope or encouragement in my dilemma."

Nancy eventually came to the conclusion that "the real root problem" was her own sinful nature. "I had to deal with the fact that I was a sinner - the primary source of my gay inclinations." Yes, you read that right. Nancy speaks of receiving help from "a Christian counselor" as well. God help her.

And apparently He did, because "today I am in a paid position of Christian ministry" and she has "not had sexual contact with another woman for several years." Well, good for you, Nancy. You traded your soul for a Bible. Still, who am I to judge? Nancy says "I have become content with being single and celibate," and now she is "really enjoying life." I hope that's true.

I'm sure the intention of this booklet is to help people, but it is no less dangerous than the last booklet I reviewed. I'm sure Nancy hopes her words will encourage those with similar struggles, and help them to see they are not alone. However, I'm just as sure her words will hurt a fair number of people, who will read about her suffering and be terrified they will have to endure the same in order to be good Christians. Plus, as is almost always the case with these things, Nancy cites only the Bible, her interpretation of it, and other Christian authors (like that John White guy) to back up her claims. She does not use any source that does not already back up her opinion. If she'd listed sources that opposed her point of view, then presented her rationale for rejecting them, this would be a more impressive work. Instead, it reads like the story of a prisoner being brainwashed, who grows to love and encourage further brainwashing in others.

"People who struggle with their sexuality," Nancy writes, "desperately need to know God's holy love." Perhaps, Nancy, but what I think they really need is for writers of booklets like these to leave them the hell alone.

Likely to Convert - N/A
Likely to Convert Gays - 2
Artwork - N/A
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 6

Searching Issues: What is the Christian Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

2009-01-30T07:00:00.000-08:00

In my last review, I pointed out the difference between tracts that sow hatred and fear towards others, and those that are just trying to 'help'. Jack Chick's The Birds And The Bees instructs children to fear gay people, so I call it a work of hate. This Searching Issues booklet, written by Nicky Gumbel and published by Alpha North America, falls into the 'help' category, fortunately. It's still a load of crap, but Nicky's heart, while not in the right place, is at least in the right place's general vicinity.

It starts well, I have to say. Rather than condemning or judging, Nicky Gumbel advocates understanding and compassion "toward those for whom their homosexual orientation is a daily struggle." I doubt many in the gay community would consider their orientation to be any more of a struggle than their straight counterparts, but I'll let it go. After all, he acknowledges that "the church's attitude to (gay) people has often been one of prejudice, ignorance and oppression."

However, he goes on to say that "love does not involve condoning sin." Does Nicky consider being gay a sin? Not exactly. He points out the difference "between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior", and makes clear that only the behaviour is sinful. In other words, if you are gay, you'll be fine as long as you pretend not to be. "The biblical writers clearly disapprove of same-sex sexual practices," Nicky tells us, adding that the few scriptural references to such practices "are brief but uncompromisingly negative."

So, as with most tracts, we are caught between the rock and the hard place of supposed biblical inerrancy; if the Bible says so, then it is so. Not a surprising view, especially since this booklet seems to have been written for Christians and not secular readers. There is no cause to question the Bible's 'truth' for such readers; Nicky only seeks to remind them of their devotion, then tell them what those 'uncompromisingly negative' biblical passages mean.

Where Nicky really gets into hot water with me is when he discusses the causes of sexual orientation, and whether said orientation can be changed. "Some people believe that homosexual orientation is innate or inborn," Nicky says, then he tells us "there is no conclusive scientific evidence" to support that claim. But, "it is possible that homosexual orientation is something that may be acquired or learned." Nicky tries to seem as if he is giving both sides of the argument equal weight, but it soon becomes clear where he truly stands. First he compares homosexuality to congenital disease, arguing that "even if there is a scientific basis," it's still not necessarily good. Then he cites a survey by the British Medical Association in which 14 gay people "were totally released after Christian conversion." I checked the end notes to see when that study was done... 1955. Not exactly recent data, Nick.

Perhaps Nicky realized that a study from the fifties might not be enough, so he tells a story of some gay men he converted, one of whom "had an extraordinary vision of Jesus" in his bedroom before giving his life to Christ. He broke up with his boyfriend, who went on to have his own "amazing vision of Jesus." Nicky doesn't give us their names (or, for that matter, any "conclusive scientific evidence"), so we have to take his story on faith.

This booklet ends with a plea to Christians "to love people and welcome them with open arms into the church." That would be great, if Nicky didn't also advocate speaking out "against the practice of homosexuality." After all, according to him, "it is wrong to promote a homosexual lifestyle in schools," and "it is wrong to ordain unrepentant, practicing homosexuals into Christian leadership." Those last two statements seem to have come from nowhere, and I wonder if he squeezed them in at the last minute.

"Love is the key from first to last," Nicky writes, and I believe him. Which is to say, I believe that he believes it. As such, I don't consider this to be a work of hate. I do, however, believe it is dangerous. In spite of the many appeals to love the gay and hate the gayness, this booklet seeks to convince with flimsy logic and data that his intended readers are unlikely to question. It is also clearly biased, despite its attempts or desires to be otherwise. At least it doesn't contain the hatred on display in so many other works of this nature. It's a step forward, but too small a step in an age when we really should be running.

Likely to Convert - N/A
Likely to Convert Gays - 1
Artwork - 3
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 7

Birds And The Bees

2009-01-22T08:35:00.000-08:00

I'm going to end my second run of Chick tract reviews by segueying(is that a word? Too late, it is now) into my next theme for discussion here in Biblical Proportions - the Christian views of gay people. It's a theme I've dealt with briefly before with Dear Robert, and that Jack Chick has explored repeatedly with tracts like Doom Town, The Gay Blade, Sin City, and his upcoming book Hot Topics. For this theme, I'll add the extra category of Likely To Convert Gays to my review list at the bottom.

Birds And The Bees is, in my opinion, the most evil piece of hate Jack Chick has ever produced. And worse, his target audience is children.

Birds & The Bees brings back the recurring characters of Li'l Susy and her teacher Miss Henn, last seen in my review of The Devil's Night. The evil-looking Miss Henn is up to her old tricks; she brings a gay couple into the classroom and tells the children "this is an ordinary, loving family."
The gay men are depicted with demons crawling around on their bodies, to make sure young readers get the hint.

After school, a group of kids ask Li'l Susy what she thinks. Susy wastes no time in converting them, and pointing out the evils of gayness.
Except she doesn't - she just says the Bible is against them, and the kids take her word for it. Li'l Susy then tells the recent converts the story of Soddom. "These Sodomites worshipped Satan, were possessed with devils and they hated God," she says, and goes on to tell them how God wiped them out. "Today those SAME kind of people are back," she concludes, "but now they're called GAYS!" Naturally, the kids accept all this as truth, as readers are no doubt meant to.

If you're following, Jack Chick just stated that all gay people are possessed Satan worshipers.

When I reviewed Where's Rabbi Waxman?(another Chick tract), I argued that it wasn't necessarily anti-Semitic for Chick to say that all Jews will burn in hell because his intent was clearly to save the Jewish people from what he thinks is their ultimate fate. I cannot make the same argument here, however. The intent of Birds And The Bees is to teach children that gay people are to be feared.

"If anyone tries to make you gay," Li'l Susy warns, "stay away from them!"

No, Jack. If you want to teach children to hate, they need to stay away from you. Your other tracts are amusing - even funny - with their kooky and deranged worldview, but not this one. And in all the tracts I've read, depicting all kinds of 'evil', only gays are portrayed with demons crawling on them.

That is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Happily, this tract is no longer in active distribution from Chick Publishing. That's something to be grateful for. It still exists, however, as does the attitude that created it. And that is a deep, deep shame.

Likely to Convert - 3
Likely to Convert Gays - 3
Artwork - 9
Ability to Hold Interest - 8
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 10

Dark Dungeons

2009-01-14T10:08:00.001-08:00

I've had many requests for this one, so consider it a late Christmas/New Year's gift. I'll go out on a small limb and suggest this is the second most famous Chick tract after This Was Your Life, because it's usually the one people think of when I talk about dear ol' Jack's work. It's certainly a popular one in the gaming community.

And well it should be. The premise, that D&D leads one directly into the occult, is stupid. At worst, D&D leads one into a chronic case of virginity.

Our story starts with a group of gamers gathered around Ms. Frost, the evil Dungeon Master (or DM). Debbie is a rising star in Ms. Frost's group, but poor Marcie's character gets killed off. Marcie takes it badly, to say the least, but who cares about her? Certainly not her fellow gamers. "You don't exist any more," Debbie tells her.
Ms. Frost decides that Debbie is ready to cast real magic spells. "You have the personality for it now," she tells Debbie, and invites her to join her coven. Soon Debbie is an honest-to-gosh sorcerer, forcing her dad to buy her D&D stuff with the "mind bondage spell". Marcie, on the other hand, continues her downward spiral and takes her own life.

Sorcerer or Suicide. Pretty typical outcome for those who play Dungeons and Dragons, wouldn't you say?

No, you wouldn't, because you're not Jack Chick. Jack wants to try and convince concerned parents that role-playing games are evil, but anyone who's actually played the game will tell you he has no clue. That isn't the issue here, however. Let's face it, Jack's wrong or off-base about a lot of things. The question I'm asking is, will Dark Dungeons convince people to give up gaming and turn to Christ? My answer? Only if they're really, really dumb. This tract is only good for amusing the very people Jack is trying to save.

At the end, Debbie's Christian friend Mike (who's "been praying and fasting" for her) takes her to a Christian meeting about the dangers of role-playing games. Debbie gets Saved, and the speaker orders her and all the others to burn their D&D stuff.

Hmm... people being ordered to burn forbidden books... who else ordered the burning of books? Oh yeah, Hitler!

There you go, readers. For the second time I've compared Jack Chick to Hitler. You're welcome.

Jack Chick has gone after Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, gay people, and even the education system. I suppose the gaming community had it coming sooner or later. This tract is Jack's +2 pamphlet of conversion, but on a 20-sided die it would barely roll a 3. Gamers like myself are well protected by our +5 shield of laughter.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 9
Ability to Hold Interest - 8
Unintentional Hilarity - 8
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 3

For those of you who want even more laughs, click here for a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 parody of Dark Dungeons. It will crack you up!

Here He Comes!

2008-12-04T08:11:00.001-08:00

Want Chick's take on the Rapture and the Tribulation? Look no further.

Well, actually, you can look further. This is far from the only time Chick has dealt with the Biblical apocalypse. Still, this is the one I've got on hand, so let's see what this one has to tell us.

This dude named Damien wakes up from a nightmare in which his friends Bob and Helen get Raptured but he doesn't. Bob (a recurring Chick character) tells Damien he will be Raptured because he accepted Jesus, then he tells his friend what will happen to all those who get left behind (where have we heard that before?).

And that's it. The tract doesn't feature a story about someone getting Saved, nor does it follow someone who doesn't believe who goes to Hell (although we do get a couple of Judgment scenes with Ol' Faceless and his angelic posse near the end). This tract is much like The Choice, with one character lecturing another about Biblical stuff.

And what a weird and disturbing bunch of Biblical stuff it is! The Four Horsemen, the Dome of the Rock in flames, Arabs being eaten by vultures, decapitated heads, the AntiChrist rising to power, and we haven't even got to "the horrible nightmare that the Lord Jesus warned us about!" What is this horrible nightmare? Take a look:

From this picture, it looks like humankind will face a plague of lions, rats, vultures, and freaky little flying bugs with scorpion tails and human faces that wear these adorable little crowns! No really. Look closer. And don't you think the thing's face kind of looks like Peppermint Patty from Peanuts?

After those freaky royal bugs do their dirty work, it's finally time for Armageddon. The AntiChrist sends an army of whoever isn't dead after the lions and rats and bugs are through with them and sends that army to attack Israel. And gosh-darnit, guess who turns up at the last minute to save the day? "Here he comes!" the AntiChrist's army will shout, moments before Jesus and his army wipes them out with laser beams.

Well, that's what it looks like.

"Now," Bob says, "it's payback time," and we finally get to see some hellfire! The AntiChrist and his sidekick the False Prophet are first into the flames, then everyone else (including the Devil) has to wait 1, 000 years for their turn.

Why must they wait so long? Because that's what it says in the Bible, dummy! It is, as Bob confidently tells Damien, "exactly what is going to happen."

Chick ends the tract by having Bob break the fourth wall and tell readers "THIS IS NO JOKE!" Maybe not, Jack, but this tract sure is entertaining. Like I said, it's basically the same structure as The Choice, but Here He Comes! contains so much more spectacle. The imagery is some of Chick's best (with the exception of the royal bug. What is that all about?), and he says in just 15 pages what Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye said in nearly 15 books.

The imagery and spectacle distract readers from a terribly weak beginning, with Bob going into lecture mode after his friend Damien wakes everyone up after his relevantly-themed nightmare. It's a pretty contrived set-up, even more so than Chick's other tracts. And just what is Damien doing in Bob's house? Doesn't he have his own home? And why does Damien have the same name as the AntiChrist from The Omen movies?

I could go on, but it's time for a bit of out-of-context immaturity. "Then Satan enters the Beast, giving him tremendous power." I'll just bet!

Not bad, Jack. Of course it would be great if you could actually prove this stuff will happen. I know, I know, it's in the Bible, which can't ever be wrong because it says so in the Bible. I just can't make that leap of faith with you, Jackie. So I guess if He really does come, the last laugh will be on me.

Likely to Convert - 4
Artwork - 8
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 7

The Choice

2008-11-09T12:35:00.001-08:00

The Choice is a simple one by Chick standards. The story involves two guys having lunch, while one tells the other about Jesus. While it lacks a lot of the usual Chick action (no one dies and goes to Hell, for instance) there is still plenty of drama.

Our lunchtime companions are George (the unsaved guy with the comb-over) and his bald, nameless friend who wants to Save him. This guy smiles a lot while saying unpleasant things, so I'll call him Chuckle Gramps.

George needs to make a choice before he dies, and Chuckle Gramps gives him the Christian scoop. "We are all born spiritually dead," he says, "and headed for damnation in hell." What's more, Satan "knows there is only one way to escape hell's flames," so he uses five great weapons "to stop people from learning that way of escape." What are those weapons? Religion, Education, Peer Pressure, The Cares of This World, and Sports.

Sports?!? No, I don't get it either, and Chuckle Gramps doesn't elaborate. What he does want to do is fill George in on that "ONE WAY" of escape, "but first," he says, "let's talk about God." One senses it will be a very one-sided conversation. And one is right; Chuckle Gramps isn't interested in George's thoughts on spirituality. He pushes the Jesus message, and makes sure George understands he is "already CONDEMNED and headed for hell." It has the desired effect. "This is TERRIFYING news," George says. "It REALLY scares me." Few tracts are as honest with this part of their message - admitting that fear, not love, is the major driving force.

"What about my poor family?" George asks. "What about the billions of devout religious people who don't believe this?" Chuckle Gramps drops the smile when he says: "I'm sorry, George, but without Christ... they are doomed!" Oh, wonderful arrogance and certainty! Where would Chick be without them?

George isn't quite so dumb as most Unsaved people are in these things - he asks the one question that gets to the heart of Chuckle Gramps' arrogance: "How can you be so sure that you are right about all this?" Good for you, George! Sadly, he isn't smart enough to question Chuckle Gramps' answer: "Because it's ALL recorded in the Word of God." George gets Saved, and Chuckle Gramps picks up the tab. Which is only fair, considering what he made George sit through.

This tract is interesting in that it seems rather dull on the surface, yet it contains pretty much everything you'd expect from a Chick tract. There's the aforementioned arrogant certainly, the nose-thumbing at other religions, and just a dash of wackiness (sports!?!), all delivered by one guy to another in a restaurant. No doubt the simplicity of the setting is meant to show how easy it can be to convert people. Just sit them down, buy them lunch, and tell them they're going to Hell. That won't help their digestion, but it might just save their soul!

Not bad, Jack. This is one of your better ones, even if it is less entertainingly crazy. Still, when it comes to a your view of the world versus my own common sense, I've made my choice.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 6
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 5

Bewitched?

2008-10-26T08:03:00.001-07:00

While Somebody Goofed demonstrates the full extent of Jack Chick's paranoia, this one shows us his willingness to recycle himself. Bewitched? is, more or less, the same story as Party Girl, with a devout grandmother trying to keep an unsaved girl out of Satan's clutches.

The delivery, however, is something else entirely. It starts in Hell with Satan holding a demonic board meeting. The Devil sports a new look - gone are the horns, hooves and arrow tail, though he still has the classic villain goatee. This Satan looks like a normal human being, albeit one in fancy cult robes with a peace sign on his chest (what is that all about?) and a skull on his back. The demons, however, still look pretty much the same.

Anyway, Satan is about to hold a meeting with his demons when another demon tells him his favourite show is on. Naturally the Devil bolts to go watch the box - hey, I would too if it was Heroes. What does Satan watch?Bewitched. The image on his TV is unmistakable (and it is the title of the tract, after all). "That show," Satan tells a minion, "paved the way for all our occult and vampire programming viewed by millions today!"

We haven't even reached page 4, yet already the nuttiness is off the scale! And why does Satan's armchair have flames coming out of the armrests? How can that possibly be comfortable?

Anyway, back to the meeting. Satan wants a report from each of his demons in their "fields of responsibility." One by one, they tell him that "the sale of ouija boards has passed our wildest hopes," their drug division faces "no opposition whatsoever," and astrology books are selling like proverbial hotcakes. The demons are also forming a One World Government and their own superchurch to combat the "few Bible believing churches" that are "still awake."

In one panel, we see three graphs on the wall to Satan's left. Those graphs show an increase in Anarchy, Pornography and Homosexuality. Just a little dig for those who are paying attention.

Anyway, Satan seems pretty happy with the way things are going. However, one demon points out "a very serious trouble spot!" Apparently, a grandmother is praying and fasting for her 15-year-old granddaughter, Ashley. "It's out of control!" Now, maybe you and I might think that one drug-addicted teen runaway is pretty small potatoes for a guy who's about to have his own superchurch. However, Satan is all over it, choosing to "make an example of this case!" Fortunately, "her brain and arteries are beginning to gel" thanks to all the LSD and speed she's done.

Will Ashley's grandmother get the message of Jesus to her granddaughter before she dies? What do you think?

Like many other tracts before it, Bewitched? reveals more about Jack Chick's disturbing world view than it does anything spiritual. As wacky as he always is, I still can't get over the idea that demons created the series Bewitched to lead us from the One True Path. I wish that kind of lunacy were limited to Chick, but we are living in a world where fanatics have condemned the Teletubbies and Spongebob Squarepants as demonic creations. It makes your head spin (and possibly gush out pea soup). Maybe demons are everywhere. I find that concept less terrifying than the reality of humans like Jack Chick.

Likely to Convert - 2
Artwork - 8
Ability to Hold Interest - 8
Unintentional Hilarity - 7
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 6

Somebody Goofed

2008-10-26T07:20:00.000-07:00

Here we are, back in the Chickiverse for another look at the cartoon creations of Jack T. Chick. I've selected another bunch of goodies from the trick-or-treat bag of his mind, ones that show Jack at his finest.

Somebody Goofed demonstrates Jack Chick's extreme paranoia. A young man dies of a drug overdose, and two more young dudes overhear an old guy pondering the fate of the dead guy's soul. One of the young dudes - an innocent-looking kid with freckles - wants to listen to the old guy. His friend, an older guy in a black leather jacket, mocks everything the old guy says. Then they drive off together (without the old guy) and get hit by a train. They end up in Hell, or "the place where the lost go temporarily" where they will remain until they "stand before the great white throne and be judged by God on doomsday." Freckle-face isn't happy about this, and he reminds the leather-jacketed dude how his mocking of the old guy convinced him not to get Saved. Then the guy in the leather jacket pulls off his rubber mask (!) and reveals himself to be none other than... Satan!
So, basically, everyone you know might really be the Devil in disguise. That takes the paranoia of Party Girl (a previous Chick effort in which Satan tries to poison someone) and kicks it up a whole stack of notches.

It's interesting, too, that the leather-clad devil guy makes some good arguments. He points out that a God of love wouldn't submit anyone to eternal torment, and that the Bible is full of contradictions. He also tells the old guy that he and other nuts like him should be locked up, because his message is "outdated and one of fear." By implication, this suggests that anyone who disagrees with Jack Chick's views of Christianity (or forms some kind of argument against it) might turn out to be the Devil.

Could it be that Jack, like so many other tract makers, is a little fed up with the treatment he gets from non-believers? I don't think there's any maybe about it. After all, the old guy tries to give freckle-face a tract that has the same rectangular shape as a Chick tract. The result? The devil guy beats him up and tears up the tract, and five panels later he and freckle-face get hit by a train. So if you don't read his tracts, Jack is telling you you'll die and go to Hell.

There's some other curious things in here. When the old guy hands the tract over, he says: "2500 years from tonight, you will remember this meeting!" What is that supposed to mean? Plus, when telling the story of Jesus, he says that Christ "invaded our planet in the form of a man." What, is Jesus an alien? What a weird choice of words! But the best thing the old guy says is his reply to the claim that the Bible is filled with contradictions. People who make that claim about the Bible "simply do not understand it!" The ultimate cop-out... if you have a view on the Bible that's different from mine, you just don't get it.

This is Jack Chick not only at his most paranoid, but also his most self-pitying. What a terrible way to see the world - everyone is either lost, or they are the devil in a rubber mask trying to make you lost. I almost feel sorry for him.

And the title? It refers to the fact that freckle-face allowed Satan to beat up the old guy, tear up the tract, and talk him into racing a train. That last bit is a goof, for sure, but the first part suggests Satan can physically harm people. If that is true, why doesn't he just go around killing the unsaved with a machine gun? You know, like he did in Party Girl when he poisoned that girl's drink? Doesn't really give the rest of us much of a chance, does it? But Satan doesn't go around killing people in Chick tracts (Party Girl being the exception), so what exactly are his powers and limitations?

I guess somebody goofed.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 8
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 2

Jack made a new version of this tract, called Oops!, that is "Adapted for Black audiences." How nice of him.

The Amazing Sign of the End

2008-10-19T09:51:00.001-07:00

No, this isn't an accidental reposting of Signs of the Times. It's just another tract dealing with Signs relating to the End. It's also another one from Evangelical Tract Distributors, as the last five have been. It wasn't my intention to focus exclusively on their work, but theirs are the ones I've been finding lately. It seems they've replaced the Fellowship Tract League as the tract-makers of choice.

But on with the tract. I'll skip past all the usual babble about the age ending and the unsaved being Judged and get right to this supposed 'amazing sign.' The tract writer doesn't come out and say what it is, but I think he/she was referring to the rebirth of Israel as a nation. Because Israel has been "suddenly reborn" "several decades ago," the writer thinks "it very probably could be that the end of this age may come upon us in the next few years."

Well, that's nailing it down. Notice the ass-saving use of the words "the end of this age MAY come..." The writer obviously wants to be prepared for the best.

And that isn't the only example of some daffy writing. When describing how bad things might get, the writer says: "I don't know if God is going to allow the use of the nuclear bomb, but that's what the Bible says."

Ahem. So the Bible specifically mentions nuclear weapons going off, does it? Apparently, it also says that "one third of all the ships will be destroyed." What about planes, trains and automobiles? The Bible mentions nukes, but not Chevies or 747s?

Suppose we readers chose not "to enjoy God's salvation?" What does the tract writer recommend? "You'd better indulge in your old sins," he/she says, "make the most of them while you can."

This tract is all over the map, and completely off its proverbial rocker. Makes for a very entertaining read, but the nuttiness distracts from the already dubious claim that "the end of this age may come."

I need to review something a little more sane after this one. I think I'll go back to the world of Jack T. Chick...

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 6
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Astronauts & Celestialnauts

2008-10-19T09:46:00.000-07:00

This tract is just plain stupid. Evangelical Tract Distributors are clearly scraping the dirt under the bottom of the barrel when it comes to new ways to describe the Rapture.

"Astronauts are those who explore outer space," whereas "celestialnauts are those saved ones who shall be caught up to meet the Lord Jesus Christ when He returns."

That's really all there is to this tract, other than the standard Biblical quotes telling you how to become a celestialnaut; ie - get born again. Nothing more is done with the astronaut metaphor, either, so why it was even used is anyone's guess.

Come on, ETD! you guys can do better than this.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 1
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Signs Of The Times

2008-10-18T13:04:00.001-07:00

Time for some prophecy. It's a wonderful thing, prophecy is. You can say anything will happen, and nobody can prove you wrong. Especially if you don't give any kind of time-frame for when stuff is coming.

Signs Of The Times discusses the End-Times prophecies from the Book of Revelations. Apparently, "many thoughtful persons" think the 'end of the age' is approaching, due to all kinds of 'signs'. What are those signs? "Materialism engulfing whole continents," "unrest and suspicion between scores of nations," and "the appalling standards of 'flaming youth'." Oh, and also "two giant world powers engaged in an endless war of nerves." Two world powers? When was this tract written? Actually I don't know - there's no copyright date on it - but I suspect that last sign is a bit behind the times.

Not that it matters. "Whether these 'signs' are correctly interpreted or not," the tract says, "there is an urgent need of preparation for the Lord's Return." The rest of the tract deals exclusively with prophecies of Jesus Christ's return, and no further mention is made of those 'timely signs'. Not even the flaming youth! Only one small paragraph of this tract is on topic, so why did they title it Signs Of The Times? Cuz they gotta call it something, that's why.

Like so many tracts before it, Signs Of The Times assumes you the reader will see everything from their point of view. It says terrible things will happen to us if we aren't ready for Jesus' Return. "What is it about (those terrible things) that appeals to you, dear reader?" Not much, but the prospect of joining a religion just so some deity won't hurt me isn't very appealing, either. And why should I believe the terrible things will actually happen? The tract writer could have at least tried to tie the 'signs of the times' to Biblical prophecy. that would have been something. Not enough to convince me, but something none the less.

What a disappointment. If this tract is a sign of Evangelical Tract Distributors' quality, then their creative apocalypse is certainly nigh.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

You Shouldn't Read This

2008-10-06T17:39:00.001-07:00

...unless, the inside of this tract warns, "you intend to do something about it!" Another one from Evangelical Tract Distributors, this one has the benefit of a gimmick that almost makes reading it worthwhile.

What doesn't make it worthwhile, in my opinion, is that it is yet another tract written in retaliation to the way tracts(and tract-givers) are treated by the general public. "If, after reading (that Jesus died for you), you are preparing to throw this folder away, uninterested, you should not have read it at all!"

And it doesn't stop there. The tract assumes "you will go about your daily work tomorrow," remembering Christ's name "only in the curses you invoke on the weather, bad drivers, or your business associates." And when you die, "that Gospel preacher you so successfully avoided" will tell everyone you are in Heaven "when he suspects, and YOU KNOW that you are in HELL!"

Or you can repent, become a Christian, and "prove that, after all, you should have read this."

I doubt the motives of a tract writer who says you will go to HELL if you throw their tract away. It smacks of smugness, and not a little bit of self-pity. I really don't think either trait will win new converts over. It's too bad; the gimmick of this tract is good, but the follow-through is such a letdown. You really shouldn't read this tract, unless you intend to have a quiet chuckle.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 2

Repentance: Your First Steps To Peace With God

2008-10-06T17:23:00.001-07:00

My category for unintentional hilarity has never been more appropriate than for this offering from Evangelical Tract Distributors and writer Raymond Leeson. If anything, it's a case of the author seeing only what he wants to see.

Raymond describes talking to a man in his office, a man who was "expressing utter dejection." Raymond responds by telling him that God could make his life better, "to no avail."

"My friend was so down," Ray says, "that even as I shared the possibility that there was hope for his future, his depression noticeably deepened."

Wait, it gets better.

"Each time God was mentioned," Ray goes on, "he would become uncomfortable and change the subject."

And what does Raymond think is the reason for his friend's behaviour?

"Could it be," he postulates, "that my friend understood something about God's message that is so often missed, i.e. the need to repent?"

Yeeeeeah. Sure, Ray, that must be it. "He felt very uncomfortable about his sin, and what God thought about him." This is Raymond's opinion, of course, based on some... how shall we say, questionable logic. But who needs logic or facts when writing a tract? Besides, Ray wants to discuss Repentance(it is the title, after all) and that story was his best way in. That's a stretch, Ray, a real stretch.

The rest of the tract tells us worthless sinners the usual stuff about how we'll all go to Hell unless we get right with God. The process of repentance is broken into three steps: "genuine sorrow" for your sins, "inward repugnance to sin," and "a humble self-surrender to God's will and service." Then Ray gives us a splendid contradiction when he tells us "repentance is not a condition of salvation" because "salvation is free in Christ, but repentance is the condition through which we are able to receive salvation as a free gift." Sounds pretty conditional to me, Raymond.

For sheer juvenile laughs, I can't resist this next bit. Ray asks us, once we have invited Christ into our lives, "will you let Him have His way with you?"

Yes, this tract is really funny, clearly not what author Raymond intended. It might even cheer up someone who is "expressing utter dejection." I know it made my day.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 9
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

When The World is On Fire

2008-10-06T17:09:00.001-07:00

I've pointed out many times in the past how tracts rarely if ever supply factual evidence to back up their claims. Never has that point been driven home more hilariously than in this offering from Evangelical Tract Distributors.

"Friends," the tract begins, "let us face the facts!" Then it goes on to offer no facts whatsoever.

When The World Is On Fire discusses the Biblical apocalypse, with the AntiChrist, the Rapture, the Tribulation and all that stuff. Readers are told we can avoid all that crap if we become Christians(no surprise there), and warns us we will face "a terrible day" if we do not.

What 'facts' are we supposed to be facing? Author Harold Brenneman seems to expect us to take his word for it, offering only a few quotes from scripture to back up his doomsaying. This is nothing new, like I said, but Harold's insistence that we "face the facts" without providing any makes him look like a bit of a dum-dum.

And did I mention he does it twice? "Friends, be sane enough to face the facts," he says in the tract's midsection. Maybe he thinks if he says it often enough, readers will believe they've been given something tangible.

While this tract is devoid of factual evidence, however, it has an overabundance of fear and melodrama. "When your house is on fire you flee to safety, but where will you flee when the world's on fire?" I don't know... maybe a lake? "Why will men be such fools as to attempt their own salvation?"

This tract is also notable for some eye-catching typos. Come on, Harold, that's just lazy. And your tract can't be taken seriously. "Oh friend, who shall be able to stand?" Not many, Harold. We'll be on the ground, laughing.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Bibleman: Conquering the Wrath of Rage

2008-09-27T09:22:00.000-07:00

Every now and then, my quest for religious weirdness leads me to something you really need to see to believe it exists. Readers, I give you Bibleman.

Yes, Bibleman, a superhero for Christ. He fights evil in a spandex suit, wielding a lightsabre-like weapon called the Sword of the Spirit. In fact, his entire outfit is the Armor of God from Eph 6:10-17: the waistbelt of truth, breastplate of righteousness, shoes of peace, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, jockstrap of chastity... okay, I made that last one up at my wife's request, but the rest of it is all part of Bibleman's Full Armor Sequence when he dresses up to go fight sin.

Needless to say, this is a kid's video. It's also part of a series from Pamplin entertainment, with each episode dealing with a different problem. Conquering the Wrath of Rage deals with - you guessed it - anger management.

Bibleman stars former child star Willie Aames(Charles in Charge), who also produces and directs. He gives the show a tone similar to the old Adam West Batman show, with plenty of action and humour. Some of the jokes are even funny. Bibleman is, by far, the best Christian video I've yet seen.

If only that were saying something.

The story is simple enough. The dastardly El Furioso and his hench-dude Ludicrous(not the rapper) have developed a potent gold dust that brings out the rage in people. He successfully tests it on a kid named Jordan, and on Bibleman himself. Bibleman talks to Jordan at the request of his grandmother(Jordan's, not Bibleman's) and tries to make him see sense. Trouble is, Bibleman is dealing with his own issues; he recently lost his original partner, and an annoying guy named Cypher(named after his mother, perhaps?) keeps pestering him to let him be his new sidekick.

Can Bibleman save Jordan, defeat El Furioso and accept Cypher's help and friendship? Duh. It's a Christian video, aimed at kids. What else is gonna happen?

In spite of the predictability of the plot and general lack of acting skills when it counts (when sprinkled with the evil dust, Bibleman and Jordan seem more irritated than angry), this video also has some strange moments. The story begins with Bibleman dueling with two gun-toting villains(who they are is never explained). Bibleman gets a whiff of the gold dust, lets out a battlecry, and KILLS ONE OF THEM!!! The moment holds no gravity; Cypher seems more concerned that his friend lost his cool. "You always told me the fastest way to lose a fight is to lose your temper," Cypher says, when he should be saying, "Crap, man! you just killed a guy!"

Also strange is the inclusion of a scene in which Bibleman and Cypher stop a fight between Jordan and another boy. They wait in a nearby hedge as Jordan and the boy make threats at each other, waiting for El Furioso to make his move. Yes, two grown men in spandex outfits watching a pair of young boys from the bushes. Nothing wrong with that image! And why do they wait until El Furioso has dumped the fury dust on Jordan to intervene? Shouldn't heroic types try to prevent that sort of thing? And telling Jordan he has a bad attitude after he's been doused with a mood-altering substance is just mean.

Even stranger is the scene immediately before this one. Bibleman tells Cypher of a talk he's had with Jordan's grandmother, in which she revealed the details of Jordan's upcoming fight. Apparently granny overheard Jordan challenging the other kid to a fight, complete with time and place. Isn't it great that kids these days have such well-scheduled fights? Instead of doing something about it, granny calls Bibleman. It seems parental responsibility goes out the window when a spandex-clad hero is available.

And don't get me started on El Furioso's song and dance number. Or the fact that he has a lightsabre... er, Sword of the Spirit to fight Bibleman with(did George Lucas have a garage sale or something?).

The video does have some redeeming qualities, such as character development. Bibleman is affected by the fury dust because he hasn't dealt with his feelings over the loss of his former partner. Willie Aames' willingness to let Bibleman be less than perfect gives the character a tiny bit of depth. The same is true for Jordan, whose parents were killed in a car crash(which explains why he's so easy to anger, and why he lives with his grandmother). The other characters, however, are just window dressing, ranging from useless(like Jordan's granny) to annoying(Ludicrous & Cypher).

Like I said, this is one of the best Christian videos I've seen. However, as a children's video teaching the benefits of not giving in to anger, Bibleman is sorely lacking. Nothing is really resolved by the end; Bibleman offers empty Biblical platitudes to Jordan, then pulling an Obi Wan Kenobi during his final duel with El Furioso. Refusing to give in to anger, Bibleman lowers his sword and lets El Furioso strike him. At the last second a magical sheild from God surrounds Bibleman, saving him and reducing El Flurioso to a puddle of goo. If the message here is to tell kids to wait for the magic God sheild, they are going to be disappointed. And possibly chopped in half.

So now you've met Bibleman, an unique experience to say the least. If you have to watch a Christian kid's video, you could do a lot worse. I mean, you could get stuck with Commander Kellie.

Likely To Convert - 2
Production Values - 4
Acting/Direction - 3
Likely To Be Sat Through - 8
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Intentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

Well, that brings my video reviewing to a close for now. It was fun to do something a little different for a while, but watching and writing about these things is a lot more trouble than it's worth. I might do some more later, but for now It's back to tracts for this blog.

Left Behind: The Movie

2008-06-11T11:01:00.001-07:00

And now the big one! Left Behind is that rarest of rare things - a Christian movie that almost went mainstream. It even made it to cinema screens! Wow! Good for them. Of course, it vanished from those same screens pretty quickly...

Produced by Cloud Ten Pictures, Left Behind is based on the bestselling novel of the same name. I've read the book, and can confirm the movie is... ahem, faithful. I can also confirm that the movie is a big stinking pile of crap from start to finish.

It's bigger in scale than Cloud Ten's other films (like Deceived), and has a much bigger budget (and production values). Clearly, they were pulling out all the proverbial stops on this one. If only they'd spent some of their budget on a decent script.

Left Behind tells the story of the Rapture, an alleged Biblically-predicted event that will herald the onset of the Last Days. Supposedly, all the faithful Christians will vanish from the planet, leaving the nonbelievers to face seven years of Tribulation under the rule of the AntiChrist.

The authors of the novel, Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, asked a simple question: what if the Rapture happened in our time (or the near future)? The book, and now the film, looks at the events leading up to the Rapture, and how the world copes afterward. Not a bad premise for a story, but if you want to convince unbelievers you have to have good execution.

(Warning: Spoiler Alert...)

The story starts in the Middle East, with plucky reporter Buck Williams (yes, his name is Buck, you may now laugh) covering a special secret formula called Eden (keep laughing) that allows crops to grow in the desert. Eden's creator, Dr. Rosenzweig(Colin Fox), says he will only give the formula to those who will work to create peace for Israel. Peace doesn't come right away, because all of a sudden a million jet fighters descend upon the country in a surprise sneak attack. For some reason, the jets waste missiles firing at Buck(played by Left Behind II's Kirk Cameron) and Rosenzweig, who are really just a couple of guys in the desert. Are they really worth missiles that could be used on a military target? Probably not, but it does add a pinch of excitement. All the planes mysteriously explode over Israel, without Israel firing a shot. What, Buck wonders, was that all about?

Across the world, airline pilot Rayford Steele (yes, his name is Steele, you may laugh again) prepares to leave for work, even though he will miss his son Tom's birthday party. He does this to avoid his wife, who has gone all Christian on him. His daughter Chloe (Left Behind II's Janaya Stephens) asks why he won't at least pretend to take an interest in Mom's preaching the way she does, but Ray (Left Behind II's Brad Johnson) doesn't want to deal with that God stuff. Guess he's not gettin' raptured. Dialogue between sister and brother Steele also reveals who is rapture-ready: Chloe - "You always do as you're told?" Tom - "Yeah. You should try it sometime."

Meanwhile, in a sinister English castle that looks a lot like Casa Loma, two banker dudes and their buddy Nicolae Carpathia(Left Behind II's Gordon Currie) scheme and plot. It seems the banker dudes have set up Nicky Carpathia to take over as head of the United Nations. Seems like somebody's looking to take over the world... When Nicky Carp leaves the room, the bankers discuss an employee named Dirk Burton(a buddy of Buck's) who is trying to bust their scheme wide open. "I'd say that Mr. Burton will have to sacrifice his pension... and his health benefits." Bwa-ha-ha, aren't they evil?

Buck Williams boards a plane to London to follow up on something his buddy Dirk told him. He talks to Hattie(Left Behind II's Chelsea Noble), a stewardess whom he'd helped land a job at the United Nations. And guess what? The plane just happens to be the one that Ray Steele is piloting! Will those three become enmeshed in the dramatic events soon to follow?

What's more, Ray's been flirting with Hattie, big time! Nope, he's definitely not getttin' raptured. Of course, the novel authors and film writers could have been even more daring - Ray could have been having an actual affair with Hattie, with sex and everything - but this is a Christian production and they don't do that sort of thing.

Finally, somewhere over the Atlantic, the event we've all been waiting for... THE RAPTURE!!! Was there some great big expensive special effects sequence showing millions of Christians worldwide vanishing into the sky? Nope. No effects shots, not even a lousy in-camera trick. The raptured folks are just gone.

In spite of the disappointing lack of effects, the big event is still handled well. We start small, with the people on the plane realizing a bunch of people are missing. It is truly amazing how many devout Christians there are on that plane just then! All that remains of them are their clothes, jewellery, and of course crucifixes.

Next we turn to Chloe, who runs afoul of a traffic snarl caused by raptured drivers. Pretty soon, we learn the event is worldwide. Panic! Horror! Despair! Oh my. All flights are grounded, but Ray agrees to help Buck get back to New York by helping him find a pilot for hire. Then Ray rushes home and finds his wife and son are gone, so he starts reading his wife's Bible. Chloe comes home and starts to cry, and the acting goes from bad to cringe-worthy.

The bad guy bankers get another scene, and the bad acting and bad dialogue collide. When discussing how they can use this worldwide event ot their advantage, one of them says: "Never wait for opportunity to knock. Yank open the door and drag it screaming and kicking inside."

But that's nowhere near as bad as my favourite scene from the whole movie, the scene where Ray's wife's pastor sits alone in his church, musing about why he wasn't taken. Honestly, you have to see it to understand how truly bad and unintentionally hilarious it is. "What a fraud I am," Pastor Bruce Barnes says. "I'm living a lie... I'm living a lie." It seems that Brucie didn't really believe his own message, which conveniently leaves one guy on Earth who can supply necessary exposition. Ray finds him, they both get Saved, and then Ray heads out to Save Chloe. He also tries to save Hattie, who drops by for some more flirting. Ray doesn't want a sinful relationship, and Hattie doesn't want God, so that's it for those two.

Buck meets a CIA guy in Chicago, a guy his buddy Dirk contacted. They figure out that the evil bankers are going to bankrupt the UN with their buddy Nicky Carpy while simultaneously getting their hands on the Eden formula. "They're trying to control the world's food supply!" Buck gasps, but before they can bust this thing wide open, the CIA guy's car explodes. Buck would have been in the car with him, but he was busy giving a homeless lady some change. No, I'm not making that up, that's what happened. Buck, injured, goes to the only people in Chicago he trusts - the Steeles. Ray and Chloe take him to the church, where a convenient emergency centre has been set up, and the converting of Buck goes into full swing. Pastor Barnes and Ray provide Biblical explanations for everything that's going on, and Buck is convinced way too easily.

However, he doesn't quite get Saved yet. Instead, Buck heads for the UN to warn his buddy Rosenzweig and their mutual buddy Nicolae Carpathia about what the evil bankers are up to. Then, following a revelation revealing how Nicky Carpy will bring peace to the Middle East, Buck realizes all that Bible stuff was true. He ducks into the UN bathroom to get Saved, and soppy uplifting music plays to make sure we get the gravity of this moment.

The movie ends with the revelation that Nicky, not his evil banker buddies, was the AntiChrist all along. He kills the bankers and works his mind mojo on the UN, but Buck is immune because he's got Jesus now. He escapes and gets back to the Steeles in the church, where they prepare for the sequels that will prolong their acting careers. In a voiceover, Buck tells us "I don't have all the answers, but for now, faith is enough." The question is, will faith be enough for viewers.

Not if they're not already Christians. I can't see any non-believers being converted by this movie, let alone enjoying it on the level of an action blockbuster. Like the Commander Kellie video, this movie is so full of earnestness and importance and message that it forgets the cardinal rule of not sucking. When the acting is at its best, it is soap opera melodrama. And when it is bad, it is baaaaddd. How bad? Christian movie bad. There's no other word for it. Director Vic Sarin has no idea how to build suspense or stage drama, and the best you can say for the screenwriters is that they successfully condensed the novel into a 95 minute film.

One glaring omission is why God is doing this to humanity. Sure, the Rapture happens to spare the faithful from the horrors of the Tribulation before Jesus returns to set everything right, but that doesn't explain why God planned it that way. Sure, it's "in the Bible", but so what? The big picture makes no sense to me, and Left Behind(the book and the movie) does not provide enlightenment.

"What does it matter what we think we know?" Buck asks in a voiceover at the beginning. "In the end, there's no denying the truth." And the truth is, this movie is just plain awful. Watch it only if you want a mild chuckle.

Likely To Convert - 0
Production Values - 7
Acting/Direction - 3
Likely To Be Sat Through - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 9
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Revival of Evil

2008-05-13T13:31:00.001-07:00

Here we have an informed documentary on the occult in our society, made in what has to be the early Eighties (I couldn't find a date, so I went by the hairstyles). "Is today's REVIVAL OF EVIL setting the stage for the antichrist?" asks the back packaging for this video by New Liberty Films. If it is, the antichrist is sure taking is sweet time.

Revival of Evil is primarily a talking heads documentary, with talks given by people who have experienced the supernatural in their lives. Some claim to have had psychic powers, one (nightclub owner Mike Putini) discusses the occult in rock music, and then there's international occult expert Dave Hunt. We also get a look inside the First Church of Satan, founded and run by Anton LaVey. It's exactly what you would think - people in dark robes praying to Satan.

Each psychic person tells their story in small chunks, intercut with each other. There's Jim Gold, an entertainer and Gospel singer, who claims he could move objects with his mind. Susan Brooks, a wife and mother, performed seances in her mom's basement. Dave hansen, a teacher, got into Satanism. Carole Carmichael, a spiritual counterfeits counsellor, got astral powers from Yoga, and Mike Putini... well, he basically just went to rock concerts.

And then there's Dave Hunt, the expert. He's seen wandering around inside a library, looking intellectual. There's a shot of him slotting a book back onto a shelf before he starts talking, as if he'd just been reading something quite fascinating. He's clearly done a lot of research, but he still comes off as someone whose only source of 'facts' is the Bible. "The modern western mind is being psychologically programmed to accept the religion of the antichrist," Hunt tells us, "which I believe will be a merger between modern science and eastern mysticism, or occultism." Woah, did he just say that eastern mysticism is the same thing as the occult? You bet he did! And he's just warming up. Next he has a go at Hindu gods, "which the Bible says are demons."

Pick an occult subject, and Dave Hunt's got an answer for you. "The souls and spirits of the dead are either in Heaven or Hell and can't communicate with the living," he says, so therefore all spirits contacted by seances and mediums are really demons. What about reincarnation? "There are only two possible explanations," he says when discussing regression hypnotherapy, used to regress a subject back into prior lives. "Either reincarnation is true, which the Bible denies... or an impersonating demon is speaking through the hypnotized person, spreading the same old lies." Pretty clear cut, eh? It must be a demon spreading lies, because the Bible says there's no reincarnation. End of story.

Everything that isn't Biblical is demonic to him, it seems. "The apparitions from seances, haunted houses and ghostly shapes and shadows that appear on the walls of children's bedrooms, and fascinate and draw them into the occult, are demonic manifestations. So are UFOs." He does have some interesting tidbits along the way, though. He reveals that in 1967, Ouija boards replaced Monopoly as America's #1 parlour game. He also talks about Ouija boards used in lab conditions, where blindfolded people were still able to spell out clear messages with them.

But enough about him. Let's get to the rock and roll stuff! Mike Putini talks about the use of Satanism and the occult in rock music, as if that were a big secret. The band name KISS, he says, stands for Kings In Satan's Service, and the band members were deliberately made up to look like demons. He also talks about rock groups like Led Zeppelin and the Beatles using 'backwards masking' to put messages into their songs. Yep, he's talking about playing records backwards to hear Satanic messages! Anyone else remember that?

Mike's best story is that a friend told him the untimely deaths in the rock world were due to deals with the Devil. Singers like Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix died so young because they sold their souls for fame and power, and Satan came to collect. I guess that's a more interesting story than simply saying they overdosed and drowned in their own vomit.

This film was interesting to watch from the perspective of looking back at Christian attitudes from the 1980's, and how they haven't really changed all that much. The stories from the psychic people are also interesting - if you can believe them. Dave Hunt's stuffy intellectualism doesn't convince me, but he might get through to others. The film would be more convincing, however, if there was more discussion from both sides of the issue; we only hear from people who wound up thinking that anything supernatural was bad. This movie clearly isn't out for a balanced discussion on the topic - it's right there in the title. The movie isn't called Revival of Spiritualism or Revival of the Supernatural or even Revival of the Occult - it's Revival of Evil.

"The Book of Revelation seems to indicate," Dave Hunt says, "that in the Last Days, sorcery would be revived." Maybe, Dave, but it's 20 years later and the apocalypse still hasn't happened. The only thing I see that needs reviving is your closed mind.

Likely To Convert - 3
Production Values - 4
Acting/Direction - 6
Likely To Be Sat Through - 6
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 7

Deceived

2008-05-06T07:40:00.000-07:00

No, this isn't that old Goldie Hawn thriller. It's "a chilling 21st century supernatural thriller" from Cloud Ten Pictures, the guys who made Left Behind: The Movie and other Christian stuff. Written by Paul Lalonde (the Apocalypse series) and John Patus, directed by Andre Van Heerden (Apocalypse III: Tribulation and Judgment), and released to video in 2001, this is Christian science fiction at its absolute best.

Unfortunately, that's not saying very much. Battlefield Earth was a better SF movie.

The story concerns a radio signal, supposedly from space, which has a duration of 6.66 seconds. A rich guy named Shaw(Stewart Bick), whose company owns the observatory where the signal was detected, thinks this signal will make him rich. His Christian assistant Smitty Turner, however, thinks it's from the Devil. I wonder who'll turn out to be right?

Shaw rounds up a group of people to go to the observatory and find out what's what. It seems he's lost contact with the people there... as if something dark and sinister happened to them. The team consists of Reverend Fletcher(Jefferson Mappin), Shaw's spiritual advisor; Smitty(Michelle Nolden), his assistant; Kara Walsh(Deborah Odell), a plucky investigative journalist who always gets the story; and a deaf technician with a hearing aid named Jack, played by Judd Nelson. Judd has always been a hero of mine since he voiced Hot Rod in the 1986 Transformers: The Movie, so it's a shame to see him slumming here. Jack and Smitty used to be involved with one another, but Jack couldn't deal with the God stuff. And the fact that Smitty wasn't giving him any because of the God stuff.

More trouble is brewing in the form of Colonel Garrett, played by Louis Gossett Jr. It seems he's running a military program involving telekinesis (people who can move objects with their minds, for those of you who didn't see X-Men), and he has his own connection to this strange signal. If you don't like spoilers, bail out now.

Shaw and his team get to the observatory and find the place in bad shape. All trace of the signal was destroyed by the two technicians who'd been monitoring it, so it's up to Jack to put everything back together. Shaw plans to broadcast this signal to the world, proving the existence of extraterrestrial life, while Reverend Fletcher hopes the signal will raise humanity to a new level of consciousness. Kara(the investigative journalist with a knack for digging up the facts) wants to be the one to break the story, which will be excellent for her career. Therefore, they all want something from Jack, who is the only one who can repair the equipment.

When he does, everyone has a listen when the signal comes back. Those who hear it get this cheap special effect thing with their eyes to show they are under the influence of evil. Smitty isn't influenced because she has Jesus, and Jack can't hear the signal because Satan can't bypass his hearing aid. Those who've had the funky eyeball start to exhibit the Seven Deadly Sins, which means they are pretty much the way they were before, but their acting is a bit hammier.

Colonel Garrett arrives and takes control of the observatory with the help of his telekinetic Lieutenant Vasquez(Ramona Milano). He explains the signal is a matter of national security, shortly before he gets eye-funked himself. Bad things start to happen; the Colonel's soldiers hear the signal and go crazy, except for the one with a cross around his neck. Maybe the signal turned the others into vampires. Smitty, now convinced the signal is from Satan, tries to convince the others of the danger. Jack, the deaf guy, is the only one who listens. Colonel Garrett makes dire plans, Vasquez starts hurting people with her mind, the others go nuts and slash one-another, and the truth about the signal finally comes out.

Sad to say, this limply-directed and horribly written piece of crap is one of the better Christian movies out there. It doesn't have Left Behind's epic scope, but it does manage to be slightly less cheesy. The effects are the sub-par quality you'd expect from a direct-to-video feature, but the sets are merely serviceable. Most of them, anyway. The entrance to the observatory(which is underground, by the way) looks like someone stuck a large metal porta-potty in front of a cliff-face.

While the dialogue is woefully pedestrian, the actors do their best with it. Judd Nelson makes the best of his character and actually seems to be having some fun. You'd never think he was really deaf if it weren't for the constant reminders, but he's nevertheless the most enjoyable one to watch. The rest go through the motions like they were extras in a bad episode of Star Trek, and director Van Heerden sticks to obvious cliches when it comes to building suspense and atmosphere.

This leads to unintentional hilarity - the scene where Shaw, Fletcher and Kara go crazy and fight for a knife to stab Jack with had me chuckling, but a scene near the beginning had me roaring. Before he gets on the helicopter to go to the observatory, Jack meets a deaf kid who hands him a wooden cross. Jack looks at it for a moment, then looks up to discover the kid has vanished. Was the kid... an angel? Was it a message... from Jesus? Will Jack pull out that cross during a pivotal scene and become Saved? I laughed till I cried, I really did.

Deceived sends the message that evil can come at us from anywhere, so you'd better get Saved if you don't want to get funky-eyed and go crazy. That may be great for devout audiences, but not for anyone else. And moderate Christian viewers will long for the sinful pleasures of Hollywood and go rent Independence Day or Armageddon instead.

The film also says that if your acting career is floundering, doing Christian flicks is at least more respectable than porn.

Likely To Convert - 0
Production Values - 4
Acting/Direction - 4
Likely To Be Sat Through - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Jerry Falwell & The Old Time Gospel Hour

2008-05-04T05:02:00.000-07:00

Remember how I wrote that one video was 3+ hours of hate? This is the one. Brace yourselves. I'm not kidding. If you want my usual tongue-in-cheek stuff, you'd better wait for the next post.

Saying Jerry Falwell was anti-gay is like saying the sun emits light in the visible spectrum. Nevertheless, for those who need proof, this is it. Made in 1993 and broken into five segments, the tape contains two episodes of Jerry's Old Time Gospel Hour show, followed by a series of "exposes".

First, though, there's an advert for Liberty University, "a distinctly Christian university." Jerry asks viewers to send him the names and addresses of high school students, so he can send them information on the place. If you do send him some names, you get a free lapel pin! Next, there's an introduction from Jerry, where he expresses his desire that this video will be 'a blessing'.

Then we're on to the meat of the tape, starting with a Gospel Hour episode titled "It's High Time for Christians to Come Out of the Closet." By this he means Christians need to stop hiding their beliefs behind "political correctness" and fear of being called a bigot - they must stand up for what they believe in, and stop those "perverts" and "weirdos" from taking over the country. Yes, he actually uses those words to describe homosexuals. And he really does think they are trying to conquer the United States. "The future of America depends on Christians coming out of the closet now," he says, because failure to change the current sate of affairs "may well bring the Judgment of God upon this land." He's also against homosexuals as Scout leaders, because "you don't put the fox in the henhouse."

Then he insults feminists for no obvious reason. "If you're going to overcome political correctness in the schools..." he tells the nations' parents, "new age doctrine and feminism and all that, you have to live Christ in front of your children 24/7."

And that's just the first hour. The next episode is titled "The Deafening Silence of America's Pulpits." Basically, its Jerry whining about how other priests don't preach anti-gay scripture the way he does.

I got bored and skipped ahead to the next bit, titled "The Roberta Achtenberg Scandal Tape," and it is hilarious for being not much of a scandal at all. He reveals that Achtenberg, then-Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is a lesbian. So? A little research shows she's been 'out' since the '80s, and from the tape it appears she's quite happy about it.

The bulk of this section is a 17-minute tape of the 1992 San Francisco Gay/Lesbian Pride Parade, filmed and sent in by a devoted Christian. Jerry stresses the footage is for adults only, because the material is "shocking" and will "turn your stomach." Maybe to you, Jerry. However, anyone who's seen a Gay Pride Parade, and all the costumes and naughtiness and sense of fun that goes into one, won't be shocked at all.

The tape starts with Roberta Achtenberg sitting on the back of a convertible with her partner, then-San Francisco Municipal Court judge Mary Morgan, and their son Benji. As the car goes by, the two women put their arms around each other and kiss. The tape goes into slow motion here, just to make sure we don't miss anything. "What a terrible roll model for America's young people," Jerry says, before telling us the tape hasn't been edited in any way. That's a lie right there, Jerry. Not only is there the aforementioned slow-mo, there is also the issue of the time index in the lower right-hand corner. It clearly jumps around from one o'clock to twelve o'clock to two o'clock and back again. Unless the cameraperson was a time-traveller, that's editing. Also, the Achtenberg-Morgan kiss appears twice, and all the nudity is pixilated. I can understand the pixilation, but that still counts as editing, Jerry.

The next two parts of this video, "Expose of the Clinton Inaugral Galas" and "Expanded Expose of the Radical Gay and Lesbian Agenda Volumes 1 & 2," continue to draw from the same bag of bigotry. President Bill Clinton was pro-gay rights, so many in the gay and lesbian community came out to his inaugural gala to celebrate. Jerry seeks to show us "what really happened," the sort of things the "liberal media" didn't show us. All Jerry reveals, however, is that homosexuals want the same rights and freedoms that straight Americans enjoy, including the right to marry or join the army. The tape ends with Jerry making a plea to Christians to stop proposed legislation that would grant homosexuals equal rights. I'm not sure which is worse - that gay human beings have had to live without those rights, or that people like Jerry Falwell would fight so hard to suppress them.

On May 15, 2007, Jerry Falwell, organizer of the Moral Majority and founder of Liberty University, passed away. This tape serves not as an expose of homosexuals but an expose on him, revealing the hate that hides behind the cross. He clearly was a hate-filled man - he wouldn't call homosexuals weirdos and perverts if he was speaking from a place of love. What a sad, terrible legacy to leave behind.

This is the worst thing I've had to review so far, and I'm glad it's over. Goodbye, Jerry Falwell. It hasn't been pleasant.

Likely To Convert - 0
Production Values - 5
Acting/Direction - 7
Likely To Be Sat Through - 1
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 10

Commander Kellie and the Superkids: The Sword

2008-05-01T05:31:00.001-07:00

This is the perfect movie to start my video review section off with a whimper. Aimed at young kids and dumbed down to fetus level, Commander Kellie and the Superkids: The Sword is wonderfully, delightfully terrible.

The Sword is at least the third (or possibly fourth) Superkid adventure from Kenneth Copeland Ministries, starring Ken's daughter Kellie as the titular commander. I think the story is supposed to be set in the future; no doubt the exact time and place for these stories was given in a previous adventure. What can be gleaned is this - a powerful broadcast media company called NME (clever, huh?) has taken over the airwaves to promote The Lie.

However, the Superkids - a secret organization made up almost entirely of children - fights back with their own broadcast network, SKTV. The Superkids basically steal airtime from NME so they can spread the Christian message and sing lame songs. This is a musical, and the movie frequently pauses for songs like You've Got To Know Who You Are In Jesus or Faithful Friend, even if the songs don't have anything to do with the story.

SKTV has its home in Superkid Academy, a Starship Enterprise-like secret base where cute kids walk around spouting technobabble. Commander Kellie runs the show, and leads a crack team of Bible-knowing teenagers known as the Blue Squad: Paul, Missy, Rapper, Valerie and Alex. They all wear blue Star Trek: The Next Generation outfits, and refer to the Bible as the Superkid Manual. "This is our weapon!" Commander Kellie says, holding up the Bible... er, Manual during a pivotal scene, and indeed it is: their endless quoting from it could put any enemy into a coma.

Over at NME, the shots are called by Major Dread. Yes, Major Dread. He's a rolly-poley dude with a scruffy beard who looks as threatening as McDonaldland's Grimace. It seems he wasn't successful in destroying the Superkids in the previous adventures, because his boss has come to run the show. His boss's name? General Fear. The actor playing him looks like a former pro-wrestler, and has about as much acting talent. However, he at least manages to say his own name with a straight face. Fear's right hand man is Captain Verath, a baldie with a thick mustache and pants designed to look like assless chaps. Dread also has a lackey, but I never caught his name.

Silly though they seem, NME has a workable plot-driving plan. General Fear has located Superkid Academy, and has successfully planted a spy in their midst. At the same time, he's had a scientist named Timothean build him a huge machine called The Sword (Secret Weapon Of Radical Deception - I bet the writers spent all night coming up with that one), which will give him power over every electronic media device in the world. It seems they already have that power - no competitors to NME are named - but at least it will enable them to permanently block SKTV. "We will see how strong Commander Kellie and the Superkids' faith is," Fear says, "when they come face to face with real fear!"

Back at SK Academy, a new recruit named C.J. has just joined the Blue Squad. She runs into the room carrying a bomb (no, not a copy of their previous video), and the technobabble and Manual-quoting goes into overdrive. CJ saves the day and gains acceptance, and immediately sets to work driving a wedge between the other Blue Squad members by creating false gossip. This leads the Blue Squad into a state where they are mildly uncomfortable around each other, but Valerie senses more evil may be afoot: "If we don't get in with the Word and find out who we are in Christ, Satan is going to deceive us."

Incidentally, the Superkids always refer to their enemy as being Satan, not General Fear or Major Dread. Commander Dana, a character who appears out of nowhere with no explanation, explains to the Blue Squad that the Devil's lies reveal him to be a liar. Thanks, Dana. Glad you could make it. And those NME guys never refer to Satan as their ultimate boss, though one is led to assume they do his work. Also, Fear repeatedly says that what he is spreading is a Lie, and he acknowledges that the power behind the Superkids is real power. Kinda defeatist, if you ask me. I guess the producers wanted to be sure kids understood who was who. Like I said, dumbed down to fetus level.

Anyway, back to the plot(and if you don't like SPOILERS, now's the time to bail out). NME broadcasts a big announcement - the Superkids have joined them! That's the Lie, you see - Fear has created exact doubles of Commander Kellie and the Superkids, who will now sing lame songs for him! How Fear achieved this - cloning? holograms? masks? - is never explained.

The Blue Squad head out to NME to find out what's going on, and are captured in short order. Luckily they are put into a cell with Dr. Timothean, the dude who built The Sword, and who also put handy-dandy self-destruct code in there. Gosh, that'll be handy! They escape, and cheap special effects take over.

Back at SK Academy, CJ is revealed as the spy (big surprise) She duels with Commander Kellie, but is ultimately won over to Christ. CJ gets Saved, The Sword is destroyed, and another song get sung.

To call this video bad is like clubbing a baby seal that's already dying of cancer. The acting is terrible - some actors look at the camera, others spout their lines as if they only just learned them and are desperate to get them right - and the dialogue is horrible, but everyone is so damned EARNEST. This story has a Message, and it Means Something, but their utter seriousness only makes the lameness stand out more.

To be fair, they aren't always serious; they have a comic relief robot named Techno, who says silly robotic things. Also, Major Dread and his lackey keep getting into trouble, and General Fear keeps pointing out their stupidity. I suppose one is meant to laugh at that stuff.

This is essentially Power Rangers for Christ, but without the kicking and punching. It might entertain very young kids, and the Message will satisfy devout parents' desire for family-friendly viewing. Everyone else, I'm guessing, will shake their heads and laugh in all the wrong places.

Likely To Convert - 1
Production Values - 2
Acting/Direction - 2
Likely To Be Sat Through - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

And Now... Videos

2008-04-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

The tract pickings have been pretty lame of late, so I've decided to take drastic action. I'm finally going to make good on my promise to include other mediums in this blog - I'm going to review some Christian videos.

Why only Christian? Like the tracts, I haven't seen any videos promoting any other religion. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Or maybe Christian videos are a lot easier to find. Either way, all these videos I've collected over the last several years attempt to do the same work as the tracts - convince you that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

I've picked up my collection mostly in used video stores, but a couple came from Value Village and one came from a Christian bookstore in Stratford.

Some are aimed at kids, some are nonfiction, and one actually made it into movie theatres. A few even have celebrities on the marquee.

Some are well-known, but most are obscure. Some are wacky, some are serious, and a couple are disturbing. One is basically 3+ hours of pure hate.

But the one thing these videos have in common, apart from their Christian agendas, is this: they are all bad. Hopelessly, pathetically lame. I realize this is my own personal opinion I am expressing here, but I've looked at these videos as objectively as I possibly can and I cannot give a single one a good grade. All one can hope for with this lot is varying levels of badness.

Bad production values. Bad writing. Acting? Don't get me started! These definitely aren't Jewish films, not with this much ham!

My list of categories will change a bit to reflect this new medium, but not by much. They are:

1. Likely To Convert
2. Production Values
3. Acting/Direction
4. Likely To Be Sat Through
5. Unintentional Hilarity
6. Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content

Brace yourselves, readers, for a whole new level of weird. Stay tuned - you wouldn't want to get... Left Behind!

My Title To Heaven

2008-04-26T11:54:00.000-07:00

I've been trying out a new method for uploading tract pictures. This time I used my wife's camera rather than the one built into the computer. Trouble is, I took the picture sideways to get all of the tract in, and blogger has no function to allow me to rotate it the way I want it. Still, it's a step up from a backwards or mirror shot. Modern technology, eh?

Anyway, on to the tract. It is published by the Evangelical Tract Distributors, and it is slightly better than it first appears with its dull cover. Half of it is a letter from some old guy describing the plot of land he was given in Heaven. "I have held a clear title to a bit of property there for over 55 years," he says. "The donor purchased it for me at tremendous sacrifice." What's that property like? "Termites can never undermine its foundations, for they rest upon the Rock of Ages." Not bad, but that must make it hard to get the plumbing in.

The letter is a little lame, but I found it kind of charming. It is nice to read material in a tract that doesn't condemn you, or dwell on sin and death.

No, this tract saves all of that for the last page. "You may be one who is reading this leaflet," it says, "and who never yet has tasted the joys of sins forgiven or the assurance of a home in Heaven." Wow, the old coot with the title to Heaven wrote better sentences than that one.

Between the end of the letter and the beginning of that sentence, there is a poem titled Heaven-Home. The less said about that, the better.

Points for a (mostly) different approach, but this tract is still fairly underwhelming. They were off to a good start - maybe they should get the old guy to write tracts for them.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

God's Offer Is Expiring

2008-04-19T10:59:00.000-07:00

Here's an offering from the Gospel Tract Distributors, a group who don't quite have the resources to be as good as the Fellowship Tract League. Their formula is the same - a fairly unimaginative cover followed by three pages of text. They also have the same message, that God sent his son Jesus to save us from our sins. The hook this tract offers is that "God's offer of mercy and pardon to sinners is now fast running out."

It's a good hook. Instead of saying "Jesus loves you and died to save your sins" they are saying "Jesus loves you and died for your sins, so act now before He changes his mind and it's TOO LATE!!!" Okay, it doesn't say God will change his mind. Rather, it says "the day is fixed for judgment upon the whole world," and that day of judgment is the deadline after which it will be too late to be Saved. At that time, the Lord Jesus will say to us, "I know you not whence ye are!" To which I will reply, "Huh?"

This tract provides a good analogy. They tell the story of how the British government, at the end of World War II, offered
a deal to deserters - if they came forward and reported themselves, they would be shown leniency. The expiration date for that offer was March 31st, 1947, and when that date came and went the thousands who hadn't turned themselves in "were hunted down one by one to face the full penalty of the law." We are basically the same as those deserters, but instead of a known expiration date of March 31, we have a day of judgment that, while "fixed," could come at any time.

Why should we worry about the day of judgment? "The present dispensation (or age) is doubtless near its end," the tract tells us. Doubtless? How can they be so doubtless? "The return of the Lord Jesus Christ is drawing very near; the time of earth's dark night of tribulation, and of 'vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ' is surely at hand." Surely? How can they be so surely? Because "everything in the present international state of affairs attests to this fact." Ah, I see. That clears everything up.

This tract was an entertaining read, but I've had much better. I find it hilarious that these tract writers think that people can be swayed with arguments that stand on "doubtless" and "surely" and "everything attests to this fact." What fact? Most tracts try to hide their lack of actual evidence, but most are smart enough not to use "doubtless" and "surely" to do so. Also, as a fear-mongering tract, this one fails to use any word more harsh than judgment. What will that judgment be? Other tracts delight in giving us the gory details - torment day and night, worms that dieth not, gnashing of teeth, that sort of thing. If you don't show us what's at stake, you can't terrify us into a rash decision to join a religion, guys! I'd offer you a chance to do better next time, but given the higher quality of most tracts out there, I'd say that offer has already expired.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Creator or Liar?

2008-04-05T06:17:00.001-07:00

The last few tracts have been somewhat on the dull side, so I decided to try and liven things up with a trip back to Chickaloplis. This tract was left behind on a table in the Tim Horton's near my work, so how could I resist?

Creator Or Liar is what you might term a 'nonfiction' tract. Most of Jack Chick's work tells a fictional story of a character or characters learning about Christ, but this tract is simply a visualization of Christian 'facts' and 'history'.

The thrust of this tract is to determine if Jesus really was the Son of God sent to Save us from sin, or whether he was a liar who made the whole thing up. Naturally, Chick uses only Biblical passages to make his case.

Creator Or Liar starts at the Beginning, with Genesis boiled down to four pages. The first panel shows God, depicted as a white hand, tossing the Earth, the moon, the sun and a ninja star into the universe.

Okay, maybe it's an actual star, but it looks like a ninja star to me. And it's interesting that we're depicted as being tossed into the universe like litter onto the sidewalk (the Big Toss!). Doesn't exactly give one the warm fuzzies.

Next, God creates man "out of the dust of the earth." Another cheering thought - we're dirt in human form. The dust guy (presumably Adam) gets a choice between the big white hand in the sky and a dark-skinned dude with horns. Naturally, he goes for the horned dude, symbolizing humanity's fall from grace. Hey, I'd have gone for the horned guy, too. That sky-hand thing is freaky.

Also, when the dude runs toward the horned guy, a convenient wisp of smoke covers up his bare bum.

I just think that's hilarious.

The tract flies through the rest of the Old Testament, pointing out all the ways Man turned away from God and all of God's attempts to rectify the situation. Finally Jesus enters the picture, or rather he leaves the picture, as you can see in this image.

Those angels look confused; couldn't the Lord have left them a note or something?

Anyway, the next few pictures hurry through Jesus' life, while the narration explains that he's the lamb to be sacrificed for our sins. Not convinced? Chick provides a list of prophecies from the Old Testament that Jesus' life fulfills. This is all the proof Jack Chick is willing to offer. Not that this is a surprise.

The next few images go from the fear-mongering to the wacky. "In the future," Chick writes, "all who rejected Jesus as Lord and Saviour will have died in their sins. They will be judged guilty by the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself." We see a picture of hundreds of Damned standing before Ol' Faceless, and all of them have little wispy clouds covering their naughty bits!

The next image is your standard picture of an angel tossing some dude into Hell. I guess this tract didn't convince him! Not like the next guy, whom we see kneeling before the steps to God's throne while God says, "Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord!" Hmm, a guy kneeling before another guy so he can enter into his joy... kinky.

Now on to the wacky. Jack gives us a picture of Atheist protesters. And a Chick Tract is probably the only place you'll see that! They carry signs that say "Jesus was ONLY a man!" and "Virgin Birth is a Fable!" This of course hearkens back to the Creator/Liar theme, telling readers they must now decide for themselves which one Jesus was, along with the usual threat that "your decision will determine where you spend eternity."

Sadly, this is not Jack Chick at his best. The artwork is adequate, but the tract simply isn't as nutso as one has come to expect from him. Not very offensive, either. There is, of course, much fun to be had in taking some of the lines in a dirty context. Apart from the Enter-The-Lord's-Joy bit, there's a picture of the Virgin Mary on her knees, and the tag line reads, "God came upon her, and she conceived."

But apart from that, this tract is a letdown. A nice quick summing up of Christian belief, to be sure, but not high on entertainment value. Or conversion prospects, for that matter.

Darn. I wanted to liven things up by reviewing another Chick, but I picked a loser. Sorry, everyone.

Likely to Convert - 2
Artwork - 5
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 2

Virus Guy

2008-03-26T16:29:00.000-07:00

I've had someone try to give me a virus on this site three times. I haven't been able to find anywhere on Blogger to report the guy, so I'm posting this message to warn readers to stay away from him.

You can identify Virus Guy by the comments he leaves. He'll say Click Here or Here, or some variation on that theme, with each 'here' being a link. If you click on either link, or on his name (he's used several, the latest being Salar), you'll be taken to a website that warns you that you have a virus and must install virus protection software. The site gives you the option to download the software or decline, but no matter what you choose it will start to download to your computer.

I was almost fooled by this; I'd like to say it was my brilliance and Internet savvy that saved the day, but in truth it was my wife. However, I was at least smart enough to go and ask her if she wanted this helpful software loaded onto her computer. She knew it for what it was right away.

I've been deleting Virus Guy's comments from this blog, but he's bound to try again. Keep an eye out for those comments and don't go anywhere near them! And if any of you know how I can report him to Blogger, please let me know.

Who Really Rules The World?

2008-03-08T16:58:00.001-08:00

This is the first Jehovah's Witness tract to appear on this site. Their tracts aren't as plentiful; mostly JW's give out copies of their magazines - Awake & The Watchtower - instead.

Published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, this tract poses an interesting premise; our world is in fact ruled by Satan and his demons.

Well, that explains how George W. got two terms.

Seriously, though, this tract tries to convince readers that Satan's ownership of us is the reason the world is so messed up. It's a nice thought, really, because it lets all of humanity off the hook. No factual evidence backs up this claim; the tract relies solely on Biblical quotes and stories to prove its point. For example, the tract discusses the time when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness. He offered Him all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would fall to his knees and worship him. How could Satan offer Him the world, the tract asks, if it wasn't his to offer? Ah ha! And Jesus does not deny Satan's ownership, either. So there.

As with most tracts, you have to already believe the Bible in order to accept the Biblical truth at face value. If you don't, what reason do you have to believe that Satan rules us, rather than us simply ruling ourselves?

Having run out of material to back up the World Emperor Satan claim, the tract spends the next two pages off on a tangent about demons. Apparently, demons pretend to be dead people to fool people who go to mediums and seances. This kind of involvement is called Spiritism, and the tract urges readers to "resist all its practices regardless of how much fun, or how exciting, they may seem to be."

Demons also promote "literature, movies, and television programs that feature immoral and unnatural sexual behaviour." What do you suppose those unnatural behaviours are? Probably not navel penetration, I'm guessing.

The tract ends not with the usual 'Save me' prayer but an announcement that "the time is near when Satan and his cohorts will be no more!" How this will happen is not revealed.

This tract, while mostly text, isn't as lame as one might guess. There's some interesting background on Satan and his great rebellion against God, and the stuff on unnatural sexual behaviour is either hilarious or deeply offensive, depending on how you choose to look at it.

It is worth noting the tract never mentions how Satan came to rule the world - quite the glaring omission. Also, the tract doesn't ask the reader to convert. Instead, it says that "those who do God's will" will "enjoy life forever in God's righteous new world." Good on them. I hope they have a good time.

And I hope their other tracts will be better than this one.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 3

Trinity

2008-03-05T16:01:00.000-08:00

A woman handed me this in a subway station on my way home from work. She told me that "the wrath is coming, to Canada as well as other countries." Glad to hear we won't be left out.

I told her the tract had a nice cover, but the words were unlikely to grab anyone's attention. I don't think she understood what I meant. She offered me another from the same publisher (Canadian Bible Society), but it wasn't any better.

You know, it occurs to me the religious community might not wholly appreciate the work I do critiquing their tracts. Just a hunch.

Anyway, Trinity is another quote tract. The cover is a lovely stained-glass window, but the inside is mostly Bible quotes and way too much white space.

Notice I said mostly. The introductory paragraph is slightly intriguing, as it talks about why the Old Testament "never refers explicitly to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." No, it isn't because they hadn't come up with the whole Trinity concept yet. Instead, the Old Testament "insists on the unity of God" because of "the large number of polytheistic religions of the time." Neat. It doesn't save this tract or anything, but it's the most interesting thing it has to say.

Sorry, subway lady, but if you want to save us from this wrath thingie, you'll need to find better tracts than this one.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 5
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 0
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Eternal Life Is A Free Gift

2008-03-04T04:12:00.001-08:00

This one's going out to the three cute girls I met on the subway on Sunday. I saw them reading this tract, and asked if I could review it for this blog. Thanks, girls!

Sadly, it's not one of the good ones. Published by the Fellowship Tract League, it's just three pages of text with a lame clip-art cover (and not even the good clip art, either).

The message inside is nothing new, nor is it presented in an original or creative way. You're a sinner, you're going to Hell, good works can't save you, you can't save yourself, you gotta be born again. Blah, blah, blah, heard it all before.

Still, this 'free gift' does have some amusing bits. To make sure we understand what Hell will be like, this tract says it will be "eternal burning!" With the quotation marks and exclamation point. And those two words were in bold and italic typeface. They could have done each letter in different colours, but that would have been overkill.

There's also some of that old time Biblical talk. Apparently, Jesus once said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee..." Wow. Don't hear a lot of that nowadays. And you gotta hand it to the Lord, one 'verily' would not have been enough. Later we get a description of life, described as "a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." Love the use of 'eth' in there. Just sprinkle a few eth's into daily conversation and you get instant Biblicability.

The same goes for 'hath', as in this sentence: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins." You can't go wrong with hath.

I gotta tell you, Fellowship Tract League, this Free Gift of yours looks suspiciously like a cheap tie you bought at Value Village. Or a Santa-shaped tin you re-gifted from a friend. You won't be saving any souls with this one.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 0
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Are You Good Enough For Heaven?

2008-02-27T15:36:00.000-08:00

Short answer - NO.

Here's another tract from Ron Wheeler, the cartoonist behind Is Christianity Just A Crutch? and others. Usually, cartoon tracts guarantee at least some entertainment value, but not this one. Here, Ron is clearly slumming it.

Published by Good News Publishers, this entire tract is a conversation between the author (who appears simply as text) and a guy in a yellow shirt (who represents all of us lowly scumbag sinners). The floating text asks the yellow-shirted guy what he's done to deserve to go to Heaven, then points out that he's really not that great at all. The yellow-shirted guy lets the text questions walk all over him, then admits he's a sinner who doesn't obey God's laws. The text tells him to pray for Salvation, which he does on the last page.

Ron, what the fudge? Why didn't you have a character like God or an angel talk to the guy? That would have been a lot more interesting than simple text.

Plus, I have to take you to task for the bullying nature you demonstrate. You ask your yellow-shirted guy what good deeds he's done, then chastise him for not fighting hunger in 3rd world countries. You even have a go at him for not helping an old lady with her groceries. And yet, countless tracts have said that good works are meaningless (one even referred to them as 'filthy rags'). You even point that out to the yellow shirted dude when you tell him he needs to be born again.

So why all the talk about helping 3rd world countries? That won't help him get to Heaven, so why bring it up? That's like trying to tell someone they need a ticket to get on a train by criticizing the way they packed their luggage.

Next time, Ron, I hope you'll do a better job. It can't be easy being a poor man's Jack Chick, but that's no excuse for sloppy work. I may not be good enough for Heaven, but this tract ain't good enough for me.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 3
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 0
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

The True Meaning of Christmas

2008-02-03T18:00:00.000-08:00

In one of the South Park Christmas Specials, Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo tells viewers that "for some people, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus!" This tract shares that sentiment, and encourages readers to give a life in Christ a go.

Sadly, it's a quote tract. Four Biblical quotations seek to convince the reader that Jesus is the true reason for the season. What have I always said about quote tracts? They are boring, and no one will read them. I mean, if you picked up a piece of paper on which were written the words: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord," would you be all, like, "Woah! I never thought of life like that before. I'm converting immediately!" I mean, really?

And speaking of conversion, this tract has no instructions on how to go about it. It asks you to receive Jesus as your personal Saviour, but doesn't include the standard "I'm a sinner please Save me" prayer that practically every other tract has some version of. A very strange and unusual omission, indeed. Especially as Christians consider it the Gift of Life, and this tract is about Christmas.

This tract does, however, offer up a very nice painting of a church in winter. It is called Moonlit Village, and the artist is Thomas Kinkade. Very pretty. Too bad you can't judge a tract by its cover (although in all honesty, you usually can).

Christmas is a time of giving, but I have only contempt to offer up for this one.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 6
Ability to Hold Interest - 0
Unintentional Hilarity - 0
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

It's A Honey of a Deal!

2008-02-03T17:51:00.000-08:00

Did humanity make a deal with God regarding the fate of our eternal souls? No, we did not. But the Fellowship Tract League thought that suggesting we had might make for a more interesting tract.

And boy, are they wrong.

The tract is divided into three parts: The Negative Aspects of the Deal, The Positive Aspects of the Deal, and The Terms of the Deal. This makes you think that there is in fact a deal involved. However, the Negative section merely states that you are a sinner destined for Hell, and the Positive part only tells you that Jesus paid the penalty for your sin. The Terms? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be Saved."

Where, exactly, does the deal come in? It doesn't. But making it seem like a deal disguises the fact that this is another quote tract!

Don't get me started on the cover, or the title. What's a bear eating honey got to do with a supposed deal humanity did not make with God regarding Salvation?

Face it, League - your tracts suck. Deal with it.

Likely to Convert - -0
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 0
Unintentional Hilarity - 0
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

There Is Hope In This Troubled World: What You Need To Know

2008-02-03T17:42:00.000-08:00

I hope you all enjoyed my examination of tracts that use their words creatively. Now, unfortunately, we're back to the boring ones.

The only interesting thing about this offering from Evangelical Tract Distributors is its overly long title. As long titles go, it gives Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl a run for its money.

Otherwise, this tract is dull as watching dry paint get dryer. You need to be Saved, you cannot Save yourself, God has made a way for you to be Saved, blah, blah, blah, heard it all before, guys. Nothing is less interesting and convincing than a quote tract, and this is the worst of the bunch.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 0
Ability to Hold Interest - 0
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Excuses That Will Not Stand The Test

2008-01-03T19:03:00.001-08:00

This tract, published by Evangelical Tract Distributors, takes a clever approach to what is basically the same old, tired message. Rather than point out that you need Christ to Save you from HELL, this tract assumes you've already heard and rejected the Good News on the grounds of some flimsy 'excuse'. This tract's job is to point out all of the possible excuses you might make and show you how they will not stand up to God's Judgment.

Like I said, clever approach. If only the follow-through had been equally clever. Like so many tracts before and after it, Excuses makes the critical error of assuming its source material (the Bible) is infallibly correct, and it assumes the reader believes this, too. It does not try to convince people of the error of their excuses with anything other than Biblical 'truths'.

The tract lists as excuses all the people you're not allowed to blame. You can't blame God, Christ, Hypocrites, or even the person who gave you the tract. Furthermore, you can't say you're doing the best you can (because all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags), you can't say you weren't warned (because the tract is itself a warning), you can't say there is plenty of time (because now is the day of salvation, apparently), and you can't say you've kept the law and never sinned (because nobody'll believe that!).

You also can't say you don't believe in Hell, because "two minutes in Hell amid the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth will change your mind." Why two minutes, I wonder? I would have thought a few seconds would do the trick. The tract doesn't say, but it does get points for the "gnashing of teeth" line.

This tract does not list my reason... sorry, excuse for not getting Saved: any religion based on fear of punishment is not worth following. It does say, however, that "the mere fact that you do not believe it does not alter the facts." What facts? This tract offers none. Either you believe the Bible, or you don't. And if you don't, this tract will not convince you.

Sorry, Evangelical Tract Distributors. I know you have a very limited world view, but that's no excuse for a bad tract.

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

The Grace of God

2008-01-03T18:50:00.001-08:00

My wife Violet found this one for me, and it's just freakin' great! It's also another one from Robert E. Surgenor, the guy who brought us the Believe It Or Not tract. Once again, he's published by The Gospel Messenger.

Robert starts out with Romans 3:24, which goes: "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." He ways this quote is "fourteen divinely inspired words" that came "from the very mouth of God Himself." Robert would rather trust those words "than trust my soul on the intellectual and theological ideas of mere men." Why? Because "Heaven and hell lie before all of us and death will put us into one of those abodes - forever!"

And we haven't even got to the good stuff yet. Robert bemoans how people today don't give much thought to eternal damnation, and suggests their upbringing must have been "far different" from his own. "My mother would often warn me that I was a sinner, and if I died with even one sin on my soul, I would plunge into hell forever." Poor kid!

In spite of these "faithful warnings" and "nine close calls with death," Robert says he "wasn't Saved until the age of twenty-three." This information raises more questions about him than it answers. Why, for instance, did it take him so long to convert? And nine close calls with death? What is all that about?

Freaky, freaky stuff!

Robert spends the rest of the tract discussing Romans 3:24, defining the words 'justified' and 'grace'. Oh, and 'freely' too. Turns out it's a really big deal that Jesus freely makes us justified by his grace. Which basically means God forgives us unworthy losers of our sins, even though we don't deserve it, so we don't have to burn in hell forever.

Same old stuff, but boy does Robert's choice of words make this one entertaining. We learn entirely too much about his childhood, and his current state of mind. When God Saved him, he says he was "destitute of good works" and "entirely unworthy of such attention." The guy clearly has self-esteem issues. Makes for an entertaining read, but I wouldn't want to meet the guy.

Or his mother.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 0
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 5

Titanic!

2007-12-19T17:33:00.001-08:00

It comes as no surprise that this tract was published in 1998, while a certain blockbuster movie directed by James Cameron was making box office history. Not one to miss an opportunity, are tract makers.

Published by the American Tract Society and written by Ed Cheek, this one will remind longtime readers of this blog of What If You Had Been Here, the infamous 9/11 tract from the Fellowship Tract League. I'm happy to say that Mr. Cheek does not suggest that any of the 1,517 people who died that night are currently roasting in Hell. Instead, he uses the story of the Titanic as a metaphor for death (hardly a stretch), and how we must each be ready to face God should the unexpected happen. Not a bad way to present the message - it hints at the possibility of Hell without actually saying anything too scary.

There's a couple of lovely melodramatic passages to be found here. Cheek describes how the passengers "were dumped from the lap of luxury into the North Atlantic's icy grip." Some "shunned warnings of danger and rejected the means of escape. What about you, my friend?"

All in all, this isn't a bad tract. Yes, it exploits a great tragedy (and major motion picture), but it uses the event with respect. The author of What If You Had Been Here could have learned something from this one. The writing, while cheesy, still holds up better than most tract material, and while it won't convert me, this tract might just convince a few others.

Not bad, Mr. Cheek. Keep 'em coming.

Likely to Convert - 6
Artwork - 5
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

What To Do To Go To Hell

2007-12-16T18:33:00.001-08:00

This tract, from Good News Publishers, has an awesome gimmick. The title of the tract forms a question mark on the cover (even though the title itself isn't a question), with nice yellow-on black lettering. But that's not the gimmick.

The gimmick comes when you open the tract and find... NOTHING. That's right, the two inside pages are blank. What do you have to do to go to Hell? Nothing, those pages say. You're already going there!

Cue Twilight Zone music.

Not bad, eh? Now, in case the tract reader is a total moron, the last page spells everything out. It also gives a great description of Hell, "a furnace of fire" where there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." Yeah, that's the good stuff.

Also, this tract is a remake. At the bottom it says, "Adapted from a tract by Summer Wemp." I cannot say whether or not this new version improves upon the original.

Yep, not a bad tract at all. The blank-page gimmick works well to sell the message. Too bad the rest is dedicated to shoving fear in your face. The 'gnashing of teeth' bit undermines the seriousness. Who would have thought a quote from Jesus would work against a religious tract?

Basically, what I'm saying is that the two blank pages are the best part of this tract. Kind of sad, when you think about it. Still, this tract is on the right tract. A few more clever innovations and a little less teeth-gnashing, and they'll be winning souls yet.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Believe It Or Not!

2007-12-16T18:18:00.000-08:00

Remember Ripley's Believe It Or Not? So does Robert E. Surgenor, evangelist and author of this tract. He thought that sprinkling a few of Ripley's facts through this tract would make it more readable and fun. He's right. No doubt he also thought this tract will convince people to convert to Christianity. On that point, I believe he's wrong.

This tract contains six of Ripley's facts, and Robert backs each story up with a Biblical 'truth'. Some of those truths work better than others. And some are just plain insulting.

For example, Robert tells of the Sipra River, "revered by the Hindus" because "merely thinking of it is believed to assure forgiveness of sins." Robert congratulates the Hindus on realizing "the need of the forgiveness of sins," but points out that "their method is entirely wrong!" Robert states that the only way to obtain forgiveness "is through Christ," a classic example of My-God-Is-Better-Than-Your-God.

And he doesn't just take shots at Hindus. Next in line are the ancient Egyptians, and the facts of King Tut's tomb. "Gold rods found in the tomb" were "constructed at an angle of 26 1/2 degrees," the "angle of the refraction of light." Robert tells us "the ancients expected their monarch's soul to rise to heaven on a ray of sunlight." Robert praises Tut for knowing "he had a soul" and believing "there was a heaven for departing souls, but I'm afraid he missed heaven altogether, for no ray of sunlight will ever convey the soul to heaven." Once again, he's saying I'm-right-and-you're-wrong.

Then he goes after the Muslims. A Persian philosopher made his first pilgrimage to Mecca - a journey of 1, 400 miles - on his knees. Yet, according to Robert, the guy "missed God's great salvation! How sad!"

Indeed. And the words 'how sad' are pretty much how I would describe this tract. The Ripley facts are fun and interesting, but Robert's message isn't. Plus, the pot-shots at other beliefs (even the ancient ones) leave a sour taste in the mouth.

Sorry, Robert, but you're not converting anyone with this. Believe it or not!

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 2
Ability to Hold Interest - 5
Unintentional Hilarity - 1
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 7

Words Alone?

2007-12-13T03:59:00.001-08:00

Most tracts are deathly dull. I'd say, from the hundreds I've read since I started collecting them, the rate of boring ones is about 90%. I focus mainly on the 10% that are somewhat interesting, but I throw in a few dull ones (like How To Be Saved And Know It and 4 Things You Should Know) for good measure.

Since there are so many boring ones, I like to find tracts that add a little something in the creative department. Some, like Jack Chick's work, do this through cartoons. Tracts made by people who can't draw have to rely on words alone, and most of them fail to use those words well. The trouble is, most tracts preach essentially the same message, and their challenge is to present that message in a different way.

For the next few reviews, I will look at some tracts that have tried to rise above the crowd using only words (and no, cover art does not count). Some succeed more than others. By that I mean that some introduce an element that creatively adds to what they are saying, while others make attempts that fall flat. One makes its point with no words at all (well, a few, actually. You'll see what I mean).

Regardless of their success rate, each of the next few tracts really tried. And that's worth something, isn't it?

1, 000, 000

2007-12-10T12:39:00.000-08:00

This tract, published by Living Waters, is actually quite clever so far as appearance goes. It looks like a million-dollar bill, and if you don't look closely you might never realize it is a tract at all. Unfortunately, the innovation stops there. Once you get past the novelty of this tract's appearance, it's a case of deja vu.

While one side of this tract is devoted entirely to the image of being a $100000 bill, the other side has fine print typed around the edge. "The million-dollar question: Will you go to Heaven?" the first line reads, before accusing the reader of being "a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer-at-heart" who "will end up in Hell." As always, the assumption of Biblical accuracy and interpretation overrides any common sense.

Worse still, this insulting message isn't even made easy to read. Like I said, the type is small and printed all the way around the edge. You have to turn this thing over in your hands one full time to get to the bit about Jesus saving you, although only a half-turn is required to get to the blasphemous adulterer part.

Overall, this tract is a cute gimmick that, in the end, fails to pay off. The real million-dollar question is, what will the folk at www.livingwaters.com come up with next?

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Wicca: Right or Wrong?

2007-12-09T09:01:00.001-08:00

I'll give you three guesses as to whether or not this tract finds Wicca wrong. And if any of your guesses are no, you haven't been reading this blog very often, have you?

Published by the Good News Publishers and written by Christin Ditchfield (a Christian named Christin? What are the odds of that?), this tract aims to show the reader that Wicca is wrong. Does it succeed? No, it does not.

The tract starts by talking about Wicca in generalities. Sadly, I don't know enough about Wicca myself to say if these generalities are accurate or way off the mark. Christin actually makes Wicca sound attractive: "It promotes peace, harmony and healing," it "celebrates nature" and "empowers women" and "encourages creativity". Of course, Ms. Ditchfield is careful to begin this praise with the words: "Listen to anyone who practices the craft, and they'll tell you..."

At the bottom of the first page, Christin states that "Wicca doesn't work." the tract continues for a further four pages, but the subject of Wicca is never raised again. Instead, the remainder of the tract is devoted to pushing the Christian message. No proof is offered as to why Wicca doesn't work. Instead, Christin Ditchfield essentially says that her beliefs are the way things are, therefore any other system must be wrong.

This isn't the most arrogant thing I've ever read, but it's up there. It cracks the top fifty, for sure. I can't help but wonder why she chose the subject of Wicca, since she talks so little about it. She could have provided examples of Wicca not working, or of Christianity succeeding where Wicca 'fails', but alas she does not. This suggests she either hasn't done her homework, or she simply could not find any examples of Wicca not working. Either way, she makes the case for Wicca that much stronger.

The cover makes no sense. We have an image of a man on a tightrope, seemingly off-balance. Oh, and it looks as if the tightrope is stretching across a yellowy-red glowing expanse (hellfire, possibly?) Okay, I get what she's trying to say - people who practice Wicca are on a thin rope over HELL and could fall in at any moment. It's just that, with the subject of Wicca, could she not have chosen a cover image a bit more, I don't know, Wiccan? You know, a witch or a cauldron or something? Maybe a witch with a cauldron on that tightrope? I mean, come on. Even the Fellowship Tract League knows enough to tie the cover art in with what they are saying.

Seriously, Christin Ditchfield, what the fudge? If you're going to make a tract, don't just phone it in. If you'd provided a bit more evidence for your claims, you might have at least scored higher on the Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content category. You're not winning any souls here; all you are doing is preaching to the converted. I have to say you are very ironically named, not only because you are a Christian named Christin. Your name is also ironic because I'm about to crumple up this tract and ditch it in a field.

Likely to Convert - 0
Likely to Convince Anyone that Wicca is Wrong - 0
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

Is Christianity Just A Crutch?

2007-12-08T08:10:00.000-08:00

Remember Ron Wheeler, the cartoonist behind Heaven's Gate? Well, he's back with this tract for the Good News Publishers, once again taking aim at Jack T. Chick's cartoon-tract crown.

I'd have to say his aim falls short of the mark this time. If anything, Christians come off looking pushy and even insulting in this tract, hardly qualities for soul-winning.

Set in a coffee shop, the story starts with a man and a woman discussing religion. And when I say discussing, I mean the guy makes a lot of statements about Christianity while the blond woman tries to get a word in edgewise. He says religion is just a crutch for insecure people, that says that Christians get all worked up and emotional and take their beliefs so personally. He then accuses most Christians of being hypocrites.

I wonder if this is how Ron Wheeler views the non-Christian world. Does he really think we all sit around saying this stuff?

Anyway, the Christian 'hero' of the story turns up and barges in on their conversation. The blonde woman tries to tell the guy they are having a private talk, but the Christian (let's call him Rudy McInyourface) ignores and interrupts her and keeps on talking. So right away we've got a pushy guy shoving his thoughts and feelings on others. Does Ron really think that's gonna save my soul?

Rudy attacks each point the other guy (I'll name him Wimpy) brought up, while the blonde woman (Betty Didnlisten) continues with her vain attempts to be heard. Rudy goes after the hypocrisy charge first, saying that nobody is perfect all the time. Rudy also says "a person who thinks he's good enough" with "no need for God in his life" is a hypocrite. What the fudge? Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, not someone who thinks one thing that happens to be wrong in the eyes of one specific religion. Instead of challenging this inaccurate definition of hypocrisy, however, Wimpy simply says, "Hmmm, point taken."

Rudy continues, going after the other points Wimpy raised (Christians are insecure, Christians get all emotional, etc) while Wimpy simply listens and says, "Hmmm." Then Rudy addresses the 'crutch' of the matter, saying everyone needs a crutch to lean on sometime. He then takes a swipe at Betty, saying the coffee she is drinking could be considered a crutch. That's right, she's had no part in the argument (how could she? Nobody'll listen), but she's taking flak for it. Rudy's one special kinda guy.

Then comes my favourite part. Wimpy says "hmmm" yet again, and Rudy asks, "Is 'hmmm' all you can say?" So now we're insulting the very people we're trying to convert, are we Rudy? It's meant to be a joke, of course, but does Ron Wheeler really think a non-Christian reader will take it that way? Wimpy responds, saying, "Hmmm, I'm thinking..." and Rudy quickly says, "There's more!" Can't have any of that sinful Thinking going on, can we Rudy?

The tract ends in predictable fashion; Rudy tells Wimpy how to become a Christian. To which, Wimpy simply replies, "Hmmm." Because that's all we non-Christians can say when confronted with The Truth, eh Ron?

This tract is plain annoying, with a good amount of head-scratching thrown in. I sense the target audience isn't the Unsaved, but rather Christians - the whole thing seems geared to make them feel better and smarter about themselves. The insulting tone isn't going to win over anyone, of that I am sure.

This tract also demonstrates a very low opinion of women. Like I've said, Betty isn't listened to at all, yet she's still the victim of Rudy's potshots. She dissappears from the tract after that moment - maybe she got pissed and walked away, and who could blame her? Women have only recently been given a say in religious matters; this tract seems to display a yearning for the 'good old days' when women were married off and not heard. I don't know if Ron is being intentionally misogynist, but he really should have thought that one through better.

Do I have anything good to say about this tract? Well, Rudy may be an arrogant little bugger, but he doesn't mention Hell once. Like Facing The Future Unafraid, the tone of this tract seems to be one of improving one's life with Christianity rather than using it to save one's self from burning agony. Points for that, Ron! The cartoons also make this one more noticeable, although I have to say the artwork is definitely not Ron's best work.

What more can I say? You know what's coming - say it with me:

Hmmm.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 3
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 5

Facing The Future Unafraid

2007-12-06T16:49:00.001-08:00

Another one from the Evangelical Tract Distributors, this tract was written by R. L. Constable. This one starts with three questions, and apparently they describe my life.

1. Where have I come from?
2. What am I doing here?
3. Where am I going?

Here are my answers:

1. I came down from my apartment.
2. I'm drinking a tea, eating a Boston Creme donut, and writing this review.
3. When I'm done, I'm going back upstairs to type this review up.

However, as I read further, it occurred to me that R.L. wasn't asking about my trip to Tim Hortons. I think R.L. is trying to be deep. He spends a full page talking about the past, and how when we look back on our lives we realize things haven't always gone as we'd hoped. Interesting approach. Instead of using fear and guilt to sell the message, this tract tries to make you feel miserable instead.

R.L. goes on to address the future, and postulates that it will turn out much like the past - a void of unfulfilled promise and hopes that become faded dreams. I think I'll slit my wrists right now.

But wait! There's hope. We can have a bright future, all right, if we'll just accept Christ! Yes, it seems R.L. Constable is pitching Jesus as some sort of self-help option. Like I said, interesting approach. And points for not mentioning Hell once; the closest R.L. comes is saying that everybody who sins will die. If one will just become a Christian, "one can face the future unafraid." And how better to help us live unafraid than to not inundate us in fear. Right on, Constable! You're still not getting my soul, but your approach is a good example to other tract writers.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Suppose It Is All True After All? What Then?

2007-12-06T16:23:00.000-08:00

Here's another one that says, more or less, exactly what every other tract says. However, this one opens with a lovely bit of arrogance that tickles my funny bone just right.

Published by Evangelical Tract Distributors, this one briefly tells the tale of two friends discussing the possibility of burning forever in Hell. A Christian who had been eavesdropping cut in and said, "Suppose it is true after all?", and the conversation was dropped. According to the tract, "The power of God always backs the truth," and "The words seemed to fall on the ears of the two men with crushing force. Solemn silence reigned for many minutes. God had spoken."

I nearly soiled my undies, I was laughing so hard! What arrogance, suggesting these men had been silenced by the 'crushing force' of God's truth. Surely there can be no other possibility, although I can think of a few. For starters, the dudes were clearly open to the possibility of Hell, so the butting-in Christian simply pointed out a possibility that neither one wanted to acknowledge. That doesn't make it the Truth. And, for all we readers know, they might have stopped talking for 'many minutes' because they were waiting for the holier-than-thou nimrod to buzz off.

But no, the only interpretation the writer of this tract is willing to entertain is that the two men were silenced by the Truth. The tract continues in this vein, saying, "Suppose it is true" that Hell is real and Jesus is the only way to escape it. The writer makes some nice melodramatic statements, asking if you are "going on at a frightful pace to the eternity of the lost?" before saying, "How terrible will be your doom if you 'die in your sins'. Haste thee to Christ and be Saved." You just don't hear people saying stuff like that anymore, except in tracts.

Points for making me laugh, but otherwise, haste this tract to a blue box and let it be recycled.

Tim has spoken.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 0
Ability to Hold Interest - 2
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

How To Be Saved And Know It

2007-11-26T09:41:00.001-08:00

After exploring the worlds of Jack T. Chick, it's suck a letdown to return to the Fellowship Tract League. It just makes you aware of how little effort they put into them, at least as far as entertainment value goes.

How To Be Saved And Know It is the League's standard-issue three-pager and cover, which depicts a man in the sea being thrown a life preserver from a nearby boat. They've never gone for subtlety before, so why start now?

The text part of the tract begins even less promisingly: "If you should die today, where would you spend eternity?" After that, it's the same old message of repenting and getting Saved if you don't want God to burn you alive forever and ever, in His mercy.

In fact, this tract is a carbon copy of What If You'd Been Here, except without the despicable use of the 9/11 tragedy.

The melodrama provides a few laughs, but not many. "You are helpless. You cannot save yourself!" "Don't put this off -- do it now!" "Take God at His word. Don't trust your feelings."

That last one makes me scratch my head a little. Don't trust your feelings? Isn't that how God speaks to you? Isn't He the still, small voice inside us? That's what I've read and been told many times over, but it would seem the League doesn't agree. Best to trust a 1000+ year-old translation of Jewish and Christian scriptures than to trust your instincts.

That's all I can say about this one. Clearly, the Fellowship Tract League's just phoning it in this time. Come on, guys! If you want my immortal soul, you'll have to try harder than this. You won't get it, but it would be nice to know you tried.

Likely to Convert - 0
Artwork - 1
Ability to Hold Interest - 1
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

The Thief

2007-11-26T08:57:00.000-08:00

I was only going to do five Chick tracts this month, but I just can't resist this one. Consider it a bonus, if you will. This one isn't offensive (except to intelligence) and it isn't really disturbing (okay, maybe just a little), it's just flat-out wacky!

A burglar named Joey breaks into a guy's house and starts stealing his stuff. Chick favours the traditional look for Joey, who dresses in black and wears a black Lone Ranger mask and has long, stringy black hair. He even uses a big sack to carry his ill-gotten gains. That's right, Joey is a walking cliche.

Anyway, the owner of the house (we never learn his name, so let's just call him Cuckoo-Pants) wakes up and wishes Joey a good morning. He doesn't seem at all concerned that his house is being robbed, and when Joey threatens to kill him ("I never let a witness live!") Cuckoo Pants says, "Oh... that's wonderful!" and proceeds to make Joey breakfast.

While they eat, Cuckoo Pants tells Joey he's about to inherit riches beyond his wildest dreams. Joey thinks he's hit the jackpot, but still can't understand why Cuckoo-Pants isn't afraid of his imminent death. "I fear God... not you!" Cuckoo Pants says, and one can't help but believe him - he remains unnaturally cheerful through this entire episode. In fact, his smile only drops once, and I'll get to that in a minute.

Cuckoo Pants tells Joey about the wonderful place he'll go to after he dies - he'll have a fabulous mansion built by Christ himself (well, Jesus was a carpenter). "I'll walk on streets of gold, and angels will serve me."

Joey decides he's had enough of this crap, and puts his gun to Cuckoo-Pants' head. However, at the last second, Joey can't pull the trigger. He wants to go with Cuckoo-Pants to this wonderful place. And that, my readers, is when Cuckoo-Pants' smile drops. He gets over his disappointment quickly enough, and gives Joey the ol' so-you-want-to-get-Saved spiel. Joey repents, and all is well, except that now Cuckoo-Pants doesn't get to go to Heaven just yet. Better luck next time you get robbed, buddy.

This is one of Chick's more cartoony tracts. Not only do the characters have a 'toon quality about them, but Chick also throws little bits of 'comedy' in to lighten the mood. Cuckoo-Pants has a cat and dog that get up to all kinds of antics in the background, and there's also a boy and his mother walking past outside who engage in their own 'comical' shenanigans. If The Devil's Night was Chick-lite, this is Chick-really-thinks-he's-funny.

Only he's not. There are a couple of unintentional giggles, but the attempts at humour are lame, lame, lame.

Smack-dab in the middle of the tract, when Cuckoo-Pants is describing Heaven, Chick switches artistic gears and goes for a hyper-realistic look. It stands out because it is so different from the other pictures, and leads to the tract's only real laugh.

This is what Cuckoo-Pants looks like...

...and this is what he thinks he'll look like in Heaven (he's the one without the wings).

Poor, poor Cuckoo-Pants believes he'll finally be good looking after he dies. No wonder his smile drops when Joey changes his mind.

Oh, and Ol' Faceless turns up in a cameo. He has a little more detail around the sides of his head now. He must have gotten himself a faceless-lift, probably to keep up with all the televangelists out there. I guarantee you, his appearance is the only thing to come out of this tract converted.

The tract ends with the words, "Smart people choose eternal life in Heaven." Sorry to break it to you, Jack-O-Lameturn, but smart people don't read your stuff. Not seriously, anyway.

Well, I hope you enjoyed this trip through the Chickiverse. He really is a one-of-a kind tract maker. And thank God for that.

Likely to Convert - You're kidding, right?
Artwork - 4
Ability to Hold Interest - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 4
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Gomez Is Coming

2007-11-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

Get ready for the most unintentionally funny Chick tract yet! And who would have thought gang warfare and drive-by shootings could be funny? I did, when I saw gang shooter Ricky Valdez announcing, "Man, I'm so high!" before gunning down a crowd of people with his gun going, "Pop, pop, pop, pop." No, not Blam, not even bang. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Oh, and a victim states, "I'm hit!" just so we're absolutely clear what has happened.

Yep, Ricky and his popgun are a bad pair of boys. He's pretty proud of his cold-blooded murder, until his gang members tell him he killed Luis Gomez, kid brother of Carlos 'The Butcher' Gomez, who just happens to be getting out of jail on Thursday. Bad move, poppy.

Gomez' gang leaps into action, determined to catch Ricky as a present for their soon-to-be-free leader. They nab him in short order (Ricky's way too dumb to skip town, I guess) and they tie him up in their hangout to await Gomez' bloody revenge.

If this tract seems a little off-message, fear not true believers. Just like Gomez, it's coming.

The next day, Carlos Gomez gets out. This is one scary looking dude, complete with scars and tattoos and a big handlebar mustashe. His gang picks him up and drives him home to deal with Ricky, but The Butcher is unusually quiet. Almost as if prison life changed him somehow...

"Stay out til I'm through," Gomez tells his gang, then he tells Ricky, "You can't dream what I'm about to do." Does he have something horrible in store for poppy?
You bet he does! Gomez The Butcher (are you ready for this?) converts Ricky Valdez to Christ! Geez, was his crime really that heinous?

Naturally, Gomez' gang are confused. The Butcher explains, telling of how a chaplain visited him in his cell the night before. And not for sex, either. The Chaplain, depicted here as a black Mr. Rogers, told Gomez all about Jesus and sin and the cross and stuff. "You mean God still loves me after all the rotten things I've done?" Gomez asks, a phrase also spoken by Jill in Party Girl. Jill's sins, according to her grandmother Rita Jones, were drinking and drugs and immoral sex. Carlos' Gomez' sins? Well, one of his gang members put it thusly: "Guess how Gomez got named 'The Butcher'. Because he loves to slowly torture his victims until they die!"

In Chick's universe, torturing people to death is no more 'rotten' than doin' the nasty out of wedlock.

But I digress. The chaplain tells Gomez, "I was worse than you... and he saved me!" I guess he must have been shooting up while torturing someone to death and having sex with them at the same time, or something. After all, is there anything worse than 'rotten'?

So Gomez got Saved, and then Ricky got Saved... but the gang are unconvinced. "Man, you gotta get even with (Ricky) for killing Luis." one dude says, but Gomez says, "No way, man!" and tells them that killing each other is "Satan's work," because "when unsaved people die, they go straight to hell." On the last page, Gomez asks his gang, "How many of you will say yes to Jesus?" and one of the dudes says "We all will!". And that appears to be that. At least until one of them kills their born-again boss and takes over. Or until the Butcher realizes his unsaved kid brother is in Hell, thanks to Ricky.
Am I shedding too much cynicism on this touching moment? How about a little bit more? Look how happy Ricky is in the last panel. Is it because he has been led to Christ? Or is it because he's getting away with murder, and he can't believe his luck? You decide.

But, as the text beside the final panel urges, make your decision now.

Tomorrow may be too late.

Likely to Convert - 0h, Come On!
Artwork - 5
Ability to Hold Interest - 6
Unintentional Hilarity - 10
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 2

The Devil's Night (or, Li'l Suzy 4)

2007-11-21T08:20:00.000-08:00

Chick for kids doesn't necessarily mean Chick-Lite, even though this tract is. Many of his other made-for-kid tracts leap whole-heartedly into prejudice and bigotry, especially The Birds and the Bees - in my opinion the most offensive piece of hate literature ever published. Sadly, I don't have any of those. The Devil's Night is one of the milder ones in my collection.

The Devil's Night features the character of Li'l Susy, and explores the evils of Halloween. This is the fourth tract to feature Li'l Susy, a dewy-eyed, pig-tailed girl who lives with her one-eyed grandfather. No, that's not a code-word for something dirty, her grandfather really does have only one eye (no doubt he lost the other one fighting the forces of Satan). He wears an eyepatch and a Colonel Sanders outfit, complete with bow tie and mustache, and he keeps Susy well indoctrinated... ahem, informed of Biblical dos and don'ts.

Li'l Susy adventures also feature the recurring character of Ms. Henn, Susy's teacher. She looks like the most evil schoolmarm you can imagine - big glasses, arrow-straight hair and more wrinkles on her face than there are stars in the universe. She's there to represent the evils of today's educational system. No, not the evils of underfunded schools, out-of-date textbooks, and children being left behind. Instead, she teaches the 'evils' of evolution and acceptance for homosexuals. In this story, she forces kids to dress up in costume for Halloween. Oh, the horror!

The story starts with a girl named Buffy, who thinks Halloween is scary. Her mom is a Halloween nut, declaring it her 'favourite holiday'. Fast-forward to Ms. Henn's class, where she instructs her kids to come to school in costume. Not all kids love Halloween, however; "There's a stone in my shoe," Ms. Henn says, "and her name is Li'l Susy!" And what is Ms. Henn's stone-shoe doing about the satanification of her class? Why, complaining to her granddaddy, naturally. His response to her is interesting; Ms. Henn is in authority and you must obey her." There's a footnote, citing Romans 13:1 (...be subject unto higher powers) as the basis for this odd statement of his. Doesn't make sense to me - if someone in authority orders you to hurt or kill someone else, are you Biblically obligated to obey? Were the Nazi's following the Word of the Lord when they obeyed the authority of Hitler?

Yes, I just made a comparison between Chick tracts and Hitler. You're welcome.

Anyway, Susy and her one-eyed gramps figure out a suitable compromise; she goes to school in a Santa Claus suit, thus obeying Ms. Henn while simultaneously cheezing her off royally.

After school, the two storylines come together as Susy takes Buffy out for ice cream. They buy their ice cream in a drug store, even though this tract was published in 2004. I guess it's always the 1950's in Chick's world.

But I digress. Susy tells Buffy everything her grandfather told her about Halloween. Turns out it was the work of Pagan priests, who were "totally evil". I'm sure my Pagan friends would love that. I'll spare you the bulk of the details; basically, it all comes down to witchcraft, serving Satan, and sacrificing little children and cats and dogs (probably really cute ones, too). If you saw the Simpsons Halloween special about the origins of Halloween (you know, the one with the caramel cod), you know the story. Buffy thinks Halloween is spooky, and she sure doesn't want to get sacrificed to Satan, so Susy tells her all about Jesus and Buffy gets Saved. Wow, what a surprise twist. Never saw that coming.

The Devil's Night is hilarious in its over-the-top storytelling and complete lack of... I don't know, reality. Most of the laughs come from the art. In other tracts, Ms. Henn has always looked more than a little witch-like. Here, Chick actually gets to dress her up like a witch! Check out this picture:

A more evil-looking teacher you could not hope to create. "Ahh," she says to her class, "you're all in costume. Wonderful!" As if their souls are already lost to Satan just for dressing up. I'm not usually prone to almost-swearing in blogs, but what the fudge?

The Pagan-bashing is also fun, considering both Christmas and Easter are based around Pagan rituals and imagery. Readers aren't supposed to think about things like that, of course, but that's the problem with any tract.

So that's Chick-Lite. It's not enough to make you mad at him, but it does make you wonder what's wrong with his head. I do feel sorry for the children he's targeting - some might read this and get frightened about Halloween, before they remember how much fun it is. Here's a thought for any kids reading this - next year, why not go as One-Eyed Gramps? Or even Ol' Faceless! That would be scary.

Likely to Convert - 4
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 6
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 4

Burning Hell Put Out!

2007-11-13T15:27:00.001-08:00

A quick and very funny update on one of my past reviews. The Burning Hell was given a stronger and much more damning (pun most definitely intended) review by Karma, my pet kitten.

A copy of the tract fell under my desk, where dear sweet Karma proceeded to urinate upon it!

That's right, the Burning Hell was put out by kitten pee.

Compared to that, my review was positively glowing.

Now back to the world of Jack Chick...

Where's Rabbi Waxman?

2007-11-11T15:59:00.000-08:00

Let the offensiveness begin!
Where's Rabbi Waxman explores the question of where Jews go when they die. Jack Chick's answer? They all go to Hell.

Like the Jewish people haven't been through enough already.

This is Jack Chick at his lowest. Sadly, like Aunt Darlene in Dear Robert, he probably thinks he's just trying to help.

The story opens with a very sick Rabbi Samuel Waxman receiving a visit from his friend Nathan. It seems that Nathan's friend David (whom we never see) has shown Nathan scriptures alleging the Messiah has already come. Naturally Rabbi Waxman rejects these scriptures, because that's what people do in Chick tracts. His sickness gets serious and he dies, and finds himself in front of the faceless one on his big white throne. God tells Samuel Waxman that he sent Nathan to show him the scriptures that would have Saved his soul. "Let's look at them now, Samuel," the Lord says, before sentencing the poor Rabbi to an eternity in Hell. So not only does Rabbi Waxman get to burn forever, but he first has to put up with God's I-told-you-so lecture.

The next two pages provide all the verses from the Old Testament that prophecy the Messiah. At the very least, these pages will be of interest to students of theology.

"Is there any hope for me?" Samuel asks. "No, Samuel," sayeth Ol' Faceless. "It is too late for you."

For an omnipotent, perfect being, God really rubs it in.

The tract ends not quite as you'd expect, with Samuel Waxman falling arse over tit into the flames. We can assume that takes place, but it isn't shown. Instead, we go back to Nathan, who prays to get Saved. The picture of him getting Saved is a rare one in Chick's tracts, in that we actually get to see his face as he prays. In just about every other Chick tract I've read, repentant people are depicted as down on all fours, their faces in their hands, presumably overcome with shame. Nathan, it would seem, isn't quite so overcome, but he gets into Heaven anyway. Good for him. He can have the place.

And there you have it. Ol' Faceless will burn every single non-Christian, including his chosen people, the Jews. Here's an interesting question for discussion: is this tract anti-semitic? It certainly appears that way, but like I said, Jack Chick created this tract to Save Jewish people. He doesn't hate them, he just thinks they're all doomed.

However, even if this tract doesn't fit the definition of anti-semitism, it is certainly a big slap in the face of decency. There's a certain arrogance present in tracts, and not just Jack Chick's. They never say, "Our beliefs are..." or "our interpretation of the Bible suggests..." It's always, "This is the way things are, we know the Absolute Truth and you don't, do as we say or you'll burn." Never is that arrogance more apparent than in Where's Rabbi Waxman.

Over the last three reviews, I've shown you how Chick tries to reel in adults. For our next venture into Chickopolis, I'll review one that targets kids.

Likely to Convert - 3
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 8
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 9

Party Girl

2007-11-10T08:21:00.000-08:00

Here's where we start to see inside Jack Chick's paranoid mind. It's a fun yet disturbing place. Party Girl is about the evils of partying, and how only Jesus can save you from having a good time.

We start in Hell, where the Devil is holding a staff meeting. There's going to be a big festival in two weeks (where is never specified) and Satan wants all the partygoers' souls. His demons have been working overtime to make this happen by booking hot bands, loading the city with drugs and booze, and packing the warehouses with low-grade condoms. Okay, then. That ought to do it, I suppose.

However, trouble is brewing. An old lady named Rita Jones wakes up at 4 AM with an urgent message from God. Upon hearing this message concerning her granddaughter Jill, Rita immediately waits three hours before calling Jill to warn her that "Satan wants her dead." By this point, Jill has already gone to the festival, even though it's still two weeks away according to Satan. You just can't trust that guy!

Rita heads out to save Jill from Satan's deadly trap, while a demon reports back to his boss regarding Rita's mission. Upon hearing that Rita is on the case, Satan says, "Grrr" (he actually says that) and decides to kill Jill that very night.

So, if you're following this, it seems that Jill would have been just fine if her grandmother Rita hadn't rushed off to save her from the low-grade condoms.

Back to the story. It turns out that Satan is the bartender in Jill's favourite club, where he hides behind a mask of his own face. Huh? Anyway, he pours poison into Jill's drink, and is confident this will finish her off. "Within five minutes... my little Jill will be in hell."

Naturally, Rita Jones arrives just in time to save Jill from Satan's brew. A big guy in a mask decides not to let her drink go to waste, and is dead four minutes later. Jill's friend Debbie calls Jill to inform her of this odd turn of events, and Jill freaks out. The picture of her freaking out is one of the funniest images I've ever seen in a Chick tract.

Grandma Rita sets Jill straight, telling her Satan's "been planning your destruction for years" using "drugs, alcohol and immoral sex to keep you away from the Saviour." Only in a Chick tract do grandmothers talk like that. His dialogue is always there to propel the story and message, but it is never even close to how people actually talk. He also loves to overuse bold type, allcaps and italics. Jill gets Saved, Satan gets pissed, and all's well that ends well, hallelujah.

The message of Party Girl seems to be that you'd better Repent now, because Satan may poison the very next drink you have. That premise is so wacky, I really can't see this one converting anybody. The art is nice, especially a crowd scene in the middle of the book. Chick has a gift for cartooning, I'll give him that.

What he doesn't have a gift for is internal logic. Why, for example, does God wake Rita at four in the morning? Rita could have saved her granddaughter and got a good night's sleep if the omnipotent one had clued her in the night before. And why does Rita wait three hours after waking with God's urgent message? It seems she's willing to travel to another city and yank Jill out of a party, but she isn't willing to call her at an ungodly hour.

Then there's the issue of the afterlife. In 'This Was Your Life', Jack Chick established that a person doesn't go to Hell until after they've had their life reviewed by God. The guy's soul doesn't even awaken from the grave until after his funeral. And yet, Satan is certain Jill will be in Hell within five minutes of drinking his poison. This may seem like a nit-pick on my part, but this isn't the only time Jack-O has contradicted himself over the events immediately following death. It seems to me that if you want to win souls, you'd better present a consistent message.

I'm done with this one. It's one of the more unintentionally funny of Jack Chick's tracts, but so far I haven't exposed his dark side. That's coming next time.

Well, I'm off to get a drink...

Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 8
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

This Was Your Life

2007-11-04T14:52:00.000-08:00

This one is, to the best of my knowledge, the very first Chick tract ever published. It is the first one I ever read, way back when I was a little boy. I found it on the seat of a bus, and was intrigued by the comic book style. That is something that has always worked in Jack Chick's favour. His website proudly states, "Chick Tracts Get Read," and he's right.

This little slice of tract history starts where one man's life ends. The Grim Reaper gives him a heart attack, he dies, and at his funeral a bald man proclaims that, "He was a good man!"

Then, the story gets interesting. A voice from above says, "Arise!" and the man's soul flies out of his body. The dead man is understandably confused, and the angel who meets him doesn't make things any clearer. Off they go to Heaven, the angel carrying him Superman-style, while the dude tries to make sense of his situation. The angel brings him before Ol' Faceless (God, who appears without a face in Chick tracts 98% of the time), who sits on his enormous throne. "Review his life!" the Lord commands, and they all watch the guy's life on a big movie screen.

Naturally, we only see the bad stuff. He tells a dirty joke, he checks out a hot babe, and he learns that whispering is apparently a sin, too. Then we get to the really damning evidence. We see him as a grown man in church looking bored and thinking about the ball game. When the priest tells him that no man cometh unto the father without Christ, he says "Bunk!" and walks out.

Bad move, apparently. Ol' Faceless asks if his name is in the Book of Life, and guess what? It ain't. God tells him to buzz off, and the angel chucks him into Hell. A whole page is given to this. You see flames stretching off to the horizon, and if you look closely you can see a few people in there, too. Wow, Chick really knows how to lay on the fear.

The rest of the tract shows briefly what a life in Christ is. A different guy gets Saved, leads a Christian life, gets killed by the Grim Reaper and goes to Heaven. God tells him to "Enter thou into the joy of thy lord!" Not sure what that means, but it sounds dirty.

As this is the tract that started it all, I'm going to go easy on it. After all, there's little offensive material here - that will come in bucketloads later. This tract gets its point across clearly - everything you do is bad and being recorded, so you'd better become a Christian or you'll burn in Hell. It packs in enough fear to convert those with half a brain, and the cartoons work well to sell the message. The melodrama inspires a few chuckles, but not many. Basically, This Was Your Life sets the tone and formula for all the Chick publications that would follow.

However, the sin of whispering would never come up again.

Likely to Convert - 6
Artwork - 7
Ability to Hold Interest - 7
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Jack T. Chick

2007-10-28T12:30:00.000-07:00

And now, at last, I take you into the wacky world of Jack T. Chick. This November I will be reviewing his tracts exclusively for your amusement and/or horror.

In the annals of tract publishing, Jack's work is legendary. Some have told me he is the father of the tract, assuring him his place in history. Or infamy. While his achievement is great, his message has often contained bigotry and fear. In Jack's world, all are doomed to Hell, and demons prowl around every corner waiting to grab your soul. In fact, your best friend could be a demon in disguise! People who reject Christ in Chick tracts often face death seconds later, only to be confronted by a blank-faced God who never says anything nice. It is not a pleasant world to live in, and a far less pleasant one to die in.

But, pleasant or not, the tracts of Jack T. Chick must be reviewed. They are, after all, the great grandaddy of tracts. I will review five from my collection, so brace yourselves. You are about to enter... the Chick Zone!