Wonderful Signs

In this one, the Evangelical Tract Distributors take readers on another trip to crazytown. They present the reader with no less than ten stories of miraculous signs appearing in the sky (except one about writing on a wall). Most of the stories involve the formation of sentences in the heavens, like: "Be Ye Converted For Jesus Is Coming Soon." "The end. I come quickly." The other stories describe images in the sky, like "the distinct form of a man from the waist up," or "a distinct Cross with a silvery sheen on one side." In other words, not the sort of stuff the average Joe bears witness to on a daily basis. If these 'Signs' really happened and can be verified, then Wonderful Signs is the most convincing tract ever put to paper! If the Signs really happened. Let's say I took the time to look these up. Not easy, considering most of them lack crucial bits of information (names, dates, that sort of thing). But if I did look them up, would I find any truth to these dramatic sky-writing events? Okay, I went and took the time just now. I plugged in every word into Google that I could, and looked for some article that verified these stories' historical accuracy. The results? I found a couple of the stories online. With the same, word-for-word text as that printed in the tract. And all on Christian websites. I'm afraid I'll need to see an unbiased, secular reporting of the Signs if I'm to be convinced. But I did! I found more than two sites that verified the first Sign mentioned in the tract: the appearance of words in the sky, then "an angel with large white wings, at whose side arose a large Cross, and below whom stood the word, 'Amen'. They appeared in the night sky above Stavenger, Norway, on April 16, 1916. So there you have it. One story, verified (and not disputed) by outside sources. Tip of the hat, ETD. You did good. It proves nothing, of course, but it's more evidence than I usually see in a tract. A pity there is no account for the other nine stories. Maybe I just haven't found them yet; like I said, very little information was provided to aid in such a search. Too bad, because without some rock-solid proof that each of the ten events took place, the tract falls apart. Are we supposed to take the tract author's word on faith? At least this tract is entertaining. The details of the stories are fun, and I especially enjoyed the descriptions of non-believers witnessing the signs: "Some were unsaved, and when they saw the Cross in the sky great fear came upon them." And their names are...? Yes, I'm afraid it all comes back to that. I've made mention before about the lack of credibility most tracts have when they rely entirely on Scripture to back up their claims. Wonderful Signs tries to reach even further, attempting to make readers believe the claims of the Bible and each of these Signs, too. Suspension of disbelief will only stretch so far. Ironic, then, that ETD uses one leap in credibility (the majority of the Signs) to back up another (Scripture). At least they tried. Points for effort and substance, especially for the Stavenger, Norway story. Which, by the way, is really Stavanger, Norway. That was very nearly mind-blowing. Why isn't there more information on this event? Why no photographs? Sigh. "Well probably they are right after all," a couple of Sign-witnesses allegedly said, "referring no doubt to those who are expecting the coming of the Lord." Maybe they are, ETD, but you haven't convinced me yet. Try, try again, I'll be waiting. For now, I'll be Wonderful and Sign off. Likely to Convert - 5 Artwork - 4 Ability to Hold Interest - 7 Unintentional Hilarity - 5 Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Running Scared

This one's not a review. In fact, I am suspending this blog for the time being. The reason? Copyright law, and my utter ignorance of it. Basically, I had the fear of god (pun intended) put into me by a fellow blogger's post. She'd been sued by a photographer for posting his picture on her blog; apparently, images from the Internet are not as free as many people (myself included) think they are. I always figured I was safe. After all, I'm 'reviewing' tracts! But am I certain that, should certain tract artists come after me with a team of lawyers, I would be safe from prosecution? No, I am not. For some posts, I've removed all the images. Others I've deleted outright. A very sizable chunk of Biblical Proportions is now gone. Yes, I'm doing the smart thing. It feels like the coward's thing. And, I feel stupid for having placed myself in this situation. What does this mean for the future? Well, most of my posts depend on having at least one image to identify the tract/video/book in question. Without a visual reference, I feel there is no point in reviewing tracts any more. But I'm not abandoning this blog, at least not yet. I'll give it some thought, and come back with a different approach. For now, I'd like to thank all of you who have read these posts and enjoyed them. If you want me to continue to expose the utter ridiculousness of religious propaganda, let me know.

The Present

In my last review, I actually praised Jack T. Chick for his cartooning abilities. It was praise earned; in the world of fundamentalist cartoon tracts, Jack stands high above the rest. All that skill and craftsmanship are on display in The Present, but they are not enough to save the tract from an extreme case of lameness. The story is a simple one, starting with a fairy tale before moving on to Biblical ‘truth’. There’s this king who lives with his only son “in a palace high above the clouds.” How he and his kid can breathe up there is never explained. The king decides to build “apartments in my castle as a present for all” his son’s friends, and sends his Only Son (hint, hint) down to the people below to “invite them to the castle.” It turns out the people below are a nasty lot, and kind of dumb, too. When Sonny-boy tells them the king “has a wonderful present for you,” they assume “he’s lying” and tell him “We don’t want his present!” And then they kill the poor bastard. Yes, bastard. We never do see a queen. The king is understandably put out by the news of his son’s death, so he sends his army to attack the town, and “no one survived!” “The next part of this book,” Chick tells us, “IS TRUE.” He re-tells the story of Jesus, sent by his father from his castle above the clouds down to the people below to offer them a present. You see, there are “many mansions in heaven that HE wants people on earth to come live in.” Just like the king in that story! Jesus tells the people he’s the son of God, come to invite them all up to his heavenly mansions. The people suspect “he’s lying to us!” And, well, we all know how that story turned out. The idea Chick is trying to put forward here is that God (like that king) is offering a wonderful present that is so good, it would be utter foolishness to refuse it. He also makes it clear that rejecting the gift will lead to dire consequences. The stories don’t exactly match up – the prince doesn’t rise three days later to become the townsfolk’s saviour. Nevertheless, The Present presents the Christian faith as something wonderful to be obtained, a rare thing for any tract. The whole notion of Hell is left off-page until the very end, appearing as something of an afterthought. At least until the reader figures out that the gift of Jesus is an escape from the predicament God put them into in the first place! I just didn’t like this tract. I’m not especially outraged, I’m not particularly amused, and I’m barely entertained. The Present is the re-gifted tacky tie of tracts, best left in its wrapping under the tree. Likely to Convert - 2 Artwork - 7 Ability to Hold Interest - 4 Unintentional Hilarity - 6 Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Heaven

Here’s a tract that looks like it might be fun, what with the cartoons and everything. Sadly, the Fellowship Tract League can’t make a decent cartoon to save your soul. It starts out with a pale naked man with no penis looking up at the title in a cloud. “Boy! I’d sure like to go there!!” he says, uttering the only line of dialogue. The rest of the tract uses scripture quotes to provide context to the cartoons; each panel has at least two verses attached to it. A large brick wall, labeled SIN, pushes the pale naked man with no penis toward a cliff over the fiery pit of HELL. The brick wall has a human arm that points down at the scary flames, just in case there is any confusion about where the SIN is pushing him. Luckily, a cross-shaped bridge appears, allowing the pale naked man with no penis to cross over HELL’s flames to Heaven. This makes the pale naked man very happy. Even though he has no penis. Heaven is a simple little story that teaches all the main points about Christianity. Well done. A shame it won’t win any converts. It’s the cartoons; sure, they’ll keep the average reader on the page, but the style is too goofy to be taken seriously. Jack Chick knows the balance a cartoonist must strike when drawing a serious-minded comic strip. The uncredited artist on this tract does not. When you consider the fact that the rest of the tract is nothing but Bible quotes, one can see how the League have booked yet another ticket to Loserville. Wow, I never thought I’d compliment Jack Chick! He may be as loony as a roll of dollar coins, but the man knows his craft. Try again, Fellowship Tract League. Likely to Convert - 1 Artwork - 4 Ability to Hold Interest - 2 Unintentional Hilarity - 2 Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0

Flight 144

It's been a while since I've had the dubious pleasure of finding a Chick Tract out in the world. This one had been placed atop a pay phone in a subway station, and I spotted it as my train pulled in. I was on my way to a job interview and had two more stops to go, but I hopped off the train to grab it anyway. Such is my dedication to this blog. But enough about me! As you have no doubt surmised from the title, this tract is about some airline passengers. And if you guessed that their plane is doomed, give yourself a pat on the back. On board the doomed Flight 144 we meet Rev. Davidson and his wife, a pair of missionaries returning to America after a 50-year stint in Africa building schools and hospitals ("one just for lepers")and helping poor people in need. And did I mention they are heading for the USA "to raise funds for another hospital"? Well, they are. What a lovely couple of do-gooders. They are surely bound for Heaven when they die, right? First, don't call me Shirley (come on, this is a tract about an airplane!). Secondly, no they are not. Not according to Ed, the handsome and smiling young man the Davidsons sit next to. He seems like a nice guy, even when he freely admits "I killed a guy in a drunken brawl. I just got out of jail last week." What a terrific way to start a conversation! Ed goes on to ask the Davidsons "how many sinners have been saved through your ministry?" Like it's a contest or something. And maybe it is. Ed talks about them getting crowns in Heaven for their efforts. However, when Ed realizes the Davidsons "DON'T tell people how to get saved," he gets all righteous indignation on them. Their "good works are fine," but they "can't save ANYONE!" He tries to Save them, but then the plane crashes into the ocean and everybody dies. Too late, Davidsons! Ed the drunken brawl killer gets to go to his "beautiful mansion in heaven," but the missionaries have a date with Ol' Faceless. And it's gonna be a date from Hell. Faceless tells the Davidsons their lives of kindness and sacrifice are essentially meaningless, since neither of them were Saved. He also implies very strongly that no one from any other religion will escape Hell, since He is the Way, the Truth, the Life, and all that jazz. "This is HORRIFYING!" Rev. Davidson says, right before the angels throw him and his wife face-first into Flame County (is Flame County funny? Be honest. I was also thinking of Burntimore.) You know, I'm starting to recognize tracts like this one for what they are - revenge fantasies. How smug must Jack and other tract makers feel, knowing that they are Right and have the Truth while everyone else is basically just a walking, talking Instant-Light briquette? Visualizing such a fate on paper, complete with the "YAAAAAH!" of those fools who wouldn't listen (or take you seriously)... well, that's almost as good as the real thing, right? The cartoon art in Flight 144 is up to Jack's usual high standard, especially the facial expressions of the doomed Davidsons. And the image of the angels tossing them into Hell is awesome. I really like the image of Rev. Davidson protecting his wife from their god. The look on his face seems to say, "Don't come near her, you monster!" I'm sure that's not what Jack T. intended. The message of this tract is fairly standard; nothing but Jesus will get you into Heaven. Chick has explored this theme many times before, going through the things that won't spare you from Hell one by one. Flight 144 explores Good Works (and uses the words 'good works' no less than eleven times, twelve if you count 'wonderful works'). Others have explored being lawful, going to church, being ordained, being Jewish or Muslim or Catholic, etc... Flight 144 isn't so much disturbing as it is arrogant. Okay, yes, it's definitely disturbing, but the arrogance is just as strong. Chick presents a faceless God without any redeeming features - the reader is given no reason to want HIM. The only reason anyone would follow HIM would be out of sheer terror. Or the possibility of a beautiful mansion. Terror or greed, then. And these are the 'Good' guys? As far as the characters go, I like the Davidsons a lot more than Ed. He confesses to murder the way I'd confess to farting in public - no remorse at all. And he's pushy, too. And a self-righteous holier-than-thou know-it-all. But he's Saved, so he gets a heavenly mansion. The Davidsons, by contrast, are polite, friendly and self-sacrificing, even if Rev. D does love to toot his own horn. They are the ones I identify with and root for. So when Ol' Faceless sends them on a nose-dive to San Flamecisco (or the Poachian Gulf), I don't immediately see why HE is RIGHT. Perhaps this tract is meant for other Christians, who are UnSaved and believing they are Good Enough. Jack has a much better chance of reaching them. When it comes to secular people, though, Jack's efforts crash and burn. Likely to Convert - 2 Artwork - 7 Ability to Hold Interest - 6 Unintentional Hilarity - 6 Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Filling The Hole You Didn't Know You Had

Most tracts have a common theme, that of the need for Salvation to avoid the eternal burning flames of Hell. A few go even further, and share a more specific thread. Such is the case with the following three tracts; they try to convince their readers there is an emptiness within them that can only be filled by Jesus Christ. I'll review all three, with an eye toward their presentation of this notion.

What Fills The Void is, at first glance, a rather attractive tract. Half text and half cartoon, this tract insists that "all of us have an empty space inside that needs to be filled." According to author Stephen M. Crane, human beings "are governed by both natural and spiritual laws," that make us "grope for something to satisfy their inner hunger." Artist John Fretz illustrates some of the many things we are apparently groping: money, booze, dope, sex, recreation, sports, religion, knowledge and philosophy.
None of those things "removes the root of the problem," however, because only God "can provide spiritual contentment."

In spite of the convincing nature of John's images(the couple in the Sex picture look particularly unfulfilled), this effort from Gospel Tract Distributors fails to provide evidence for its central premise. That all of us have a void in need of stuffing is treated as a fait accompli. No effort is made to reach the reader who doesn't feel especially empty as the tract supposes.
Is Something Missing In Your Life, from the Fellowship Tract League, is even worse. The cover image of the missing jigsaw piece is clever enough, and the opening question("My friend, are you dead or alive?") is nice and weird, but the rest of the tract is just more of the same with a liberal dose of hyperbole. Lines of scripture are offered up, warning of "eternal separation from God in hell fire" unless you let Jesus "breathe life into you" and fill the "empty void and longing, deep within the depths of your soul, crying out to be filled."

I'd like to pause here to point out the enormous restraint I'm demonstrating in not using the previous sentence, or the one about groping to satisfy an inner hunger, for an obvious sex joke. You're welcome.

Do You Know My Friend, written by Modena Gelien for Evangelical Tract Distributors, isn't much better. "Hello, lonely one!" it begins. "Are you looking for a friend?" The presumption here is staggeringly insulting; not only does Modena assume we are lonely, she also implies that we have no friends! And we're only two sentences in.

"Once I was lonely," Modena goes on. "Then I met Jesus!" A young lady "introduced me to Him" by giving her a tract, and Modena "wondered if He could be my Friend, too?"

I can't help but be creeped out by the needy, clingy tone of her writing, but at least she takes a slightly different approach by presenting Jesus as everyone's Buddy. Sadly, she ruins that goodwill by saying "you are yet a sinner" midway down the second page. And she just drops it in there, too. The font size for this tract is larger than most; perhaps she had to cut all the biblical stuff about why she thinks we are sinners in order to save space.

Then there's the issue of what Jesus' Friendship entails. Modena describes her other friends as "fleeting acquaintances" who were only there "as long as I had something to give." But in order to be friends with Jesus, one must "admit you are a sinner," then "acknowledge that Jesus died for your sins," and then you "ask him to come into your heart and take control of your life." Anything else? "After that, acclaim him to the world." Seems Jesus requires an awful lot in exchange for his Friendship, doesn't it?

"If you want to know my Friend Jesus," Modena Gelien concludes, "please make that first move now." Well, my definition of a friend is someone who sees me as an equal, and I don't think her Jesus is offering that. The only move I'm making is in the opposite direction, and fast.

All three of these tracts assume there is "a vital part of your existence that isn't there." Some non-believers might feel that way, but not all of them. With no proof other than scripture, these tracts come off as judgmental and insulting at best. Void is good for a chuckle or two, and Do is entertainingly creepy. Otherwise, there's a void in my recycling box that needs filling, and these tracts will do just fine.

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

Is Something Missing in Your Life?
Likely to Convert - 1
Artwork - 6
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 2
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 1

Do You Know My Friend
Likely to Convert - 2
Artwork - 3
Ability to Hold Interest - 3
Unintentional Hilarity - 5
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 6

Sunday School Musical

I suppose, given the popularity of the High School Musical movies, this movie was inevitable. There's already an audience for that sort of thing, and they don't require a huge production budget. Good thing, too, because this movie was made by Faith Films(2012 Doomsday).

Directed by Rachel Lee Goldenberg, written by Rachel Lee Goldenberg and Ashley Holloway and starring a bunch of unknowns, Sunday School Musical tells the story of two choirs competing for a chance to win a big cash prize so they can save the local church. It's a story you've seen or read a thousand times before, a plot so old it pre-dates the Creation. This film makes the idea of computer-generated scripts only too plausible.

The doomed church in question is Hawthorne, home to a choir of urban hip-hop teens. Their competition in the regional choir-off is the Crossroads Christian Choir, made up of squeaky-clean but woefully untalented high schoolers from the suburbs. When the third group of competitors become disqualified due to a random egg salad incident (don't ask), both Hawthorne and Crossroads find themselves on their way to the upcoming States Championship - with a grand prize of $10,000 (or, ten times this movie's budget).

Zach, the best singer on Hawthorne's choir(and the main character, played by the amiable Chris Chatman), runs into some Issues: his dad is away in the army, his mom just lost her job, and his family has to move across town to live with Aunt Janet. This means that Zach must now attend a new school, and leave the Hawthorne choir behind. The scene where Zach's mom drops this bombshell on him is one of many where bad writing, bad directing and bad acting collide, and inadvertently sets the tone for the film: this is as good as it's going to get.

Zach heads to the rooftops for a musical number with Andrea, the only other Hawthorne Choir member given any characterization. Too bad, because actress Krystle Connor can't act her way out of a torn paper bag. Andrea scolds Zach for abandoning the choir in their time of need, as if it was all his fault. This is her character in a nutshell; no matter what's happening, it's all about her. This trait makes Andrea - and by extension, Hawthorne - very hard to root for. Zach starts at his new school, just in time for a really big coincidence - his new institution of learning is none other than Crossroads, home to the rival choir! They only seem to have two classes at Crossroads - Home Ec and Scripture Studies - both of which introduce Zach to key members of the choir. In Home Ec, Zach gets paired up with Savannah(Candise Lakota) for a baking project. The scene is supposed to highlight their rivalry while suggesting a budding attraction, but the attempts at both tension and humour fall flatter than the pancakes they're making. In Scripture class Zach meets the Nerd. The character's name is Miles(Robert Acinapura), but I'm going to go with his stereotype. Nerd manages to up the tension ante from boring to annoying, then drives it all the way to stupid by accusing Zach of being a spy for the other choir. A spy? Seriously? Well, this is a character who actually uses the words "willy-nilly" with a straight face. He's this movie's Jar Jar Binks, which is quite a feat in a movie full of Ewoks.

Incidentally, the Scripture studies teacher Mrs. Stewart(Debra Lynn Hull) looks like a live action Miss Henn from the tracts of Jack Chick.

Meanwhile, back at the plot, Hawthorne Church's minister informs Andrea and her choir that the church will close unless they can raise $10,000 - the exact amount of the prize for the State's Championship! Andrea wastes no time making the situation all about her. It's understandable; she isn't having much luck in getting the choir into shape without Zach. And her character only has the one note. Savannah recruits a reluctant Zach to the Crossroads Choir, where he teaches them to do their own thang. "Music isn't something you learn, it's something you feel," he tells them, launching into a musical number so rockin' that nobody notices how badly he's lip-synching.

The rest of the film unfolds exactly the way it's expected to. Hawthorne Church is saved, Zach and Savannah kiss, and all is right with the world. What I didn't expect was the complete and utter lack of preaching. This movie does not once mention Hell or the need to get Saved. There is no dramatic conversion scene, and no unconvincing 'UnSaved' stereotypes. The characters do not go around quoting scripture as if it were a second language, either. If not for a couple of scenes involving prayer, one might just forget this is a Christian movie(even though it's about choirs!). Christianity is simply the backdrop all the characters live in. Also conspicuously absent are the much-touted Christian values. When characters act out of selfishness or pride(or just plain act like jerks), nobody holds them accountable. Neither do they learn a valuable lesson that causes them to repent. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to show that Christians are just as fallible and human as everyone else. Perhaps, but I don't credit them with the skill to apply that kind of subtlety.

As a piece of entertainment, Sunday School Musical barely rates a D-. Most of the film's flaws become understandable when you watch the DVD extras; they had only 13 days to shoot, zero rehearsal time, and it was director Lee Goldenberg's first feature film. Given that, it's amazing they accomplished what they did. Cheryl Baxter, the choreographer, is the real hero. Most of the dance numbers are good, and the finale at the State's Competition is amazing. Say what you will about the acting, but these kids can sing and dance like nobody's business.

And the acting really is terrible. Chris Chatman has the entire movie on his shoulders as Zach, and to be fair he's a likable, laid back kind of guy. Whenever the script calls for anything more than that, he and all the others display the emotional range of a baked potato. This is a different sort of Christian movie, with few of my usual objections. It still sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as Apocalypse, Left Behind, or 2012 Doomsday. Faint praise, sure, but praise happily given. Like this movie, it was cheap.

Likely To Convert - 0
Production Values - 2
Acting/Direction - 1
Likely To Be Sat Through - 4
Unintentional Hilarity - 3
Level of Disturbing or Offensive Content - 0