Man always has a way of utterly defiling what God intended for good. Clowns were not the intention God had when instructing us in what pure and undefiled religion is in His sight as recorded in James 1:27.
What those in nursing homes need: To be visited by sincere Christians who will spend time with them, talk with them, listen to them, and share the gospel with them.
What those in nursing homes don’t need: A bunch of grown adults in clown attire running around acting like fools playing with balloons. (Not to be confused with the ever-popular Joyce Meyer Conventions).
Part 1
Part 2
Christ Alone Wyoming 
Just out of curiosity, pilgirm… do you visit nursing homes? Just wondering.
LikeLike
Yes. We attend weekly and hold church on the premises for them.
Why do you ask?
LikeLike
I’m glad to hear that! I would hate to think you’d be criticizing people who are doing something really positive, going in and lifting the spirits of folks in a nursing home, telling them that they should be sharing the Gospel only, but then not doing so yourself. That would be, “Do what I say, not what I do”, which is a pretty hypocritical way of life.
Point of clarification, though. When you say “we attend weekly”, do you mean your church does this, or you personally do this? Again, just wondering.
LikeLike
My former church “wouldn’t” do it. Since it didn’t have to do with the church building and filling more seats, we got very little support. But boy, when it came to building dedications or marriage seminars, potlucks, picknicks, movie night, etc., you’d pack the house.
When I said “we” I was referring to my wife, my self and another couple. We have done what the “church” refuses to do. Take the gospel to the people.
Now, you’ve revealed again that your first and primary goal is not telling people of the Good News which saves. Your above comment leans towards the following:
Just sharing the gospel = not good.
Lifting folks spirits = very good.
There must be a balance, but first and foremost, the sharing of the gospel is what true Believers are called to do. There will be many in hell who will remember those nice folks from the local church who filled their bellies and made them laugh, but if they didn’t share the Gospel with them, they will be curing their name for all eternity.
LikeLike
Well, Pilgrim, I’m glad to see that you put your money where your mouth is. My esteem for you is higher now than it was before. Way to go, as I know it was really bothering you, the possibility that I might not hold you in the highest esteem. 😉
I’m not sure why you think my primary goal is “not telling people of the Good News which saves.” I’m all for balance, just as you are. And the folks who I’ve known who have clowning ministries see that balance as primary, too.
And I agree that believers are called to share the Gospel, but where does it say in Scripture that sharing the Gospel can’t be done in creative ways? Jesus was a storyteller and miracle worker, for heaven’s sake! In Acts, God used signs and wonders, and the very powerful Baptism of the Holy Spirit to get people’s attention. That’s all clowning ministries are trying to do – follow in the footsteps of a creative Creator, a compelling Christ. and an inspirational Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Dear Nathan,
You’re kidding right? Are you really saying that Jesus telling parables and the performance of signs and wonders actually equate to people in clown suits? That’s a stretch. Please tell me you’re not serious.
I am all for creativity in presenting the gospel, but there has to be a line. Where do YOU draw that line? Is there anything that you believe crosses the line (besides Carl’s bragging that his pastor’s hot wife)? Perhaps your Bible mentions the Apostles acting like this, but not my Bible.
I think this is where we part in our view of evangelism. Who is going to take the message of the gospel seriously from a bunch of clowns? We’re talking about eternal damnation in the fires of hell for those who die without Jesus and you are ok with having clowns try to teach/preach such a message? That cheapens the gospel so much. If you want to entertain, then entertain, but don’t mix that leaven in with the sharing of the gospel.
Look, Nathan, I know that you will not see this my way, and conversely you will never convince me to come on board with your views either. I used to think/feel the same way you do. Everything was ok as long as you slapped a “Christian” tag on it. God has since changed my view of Him (better understanding His holiness) and the seriousness of our purpose in evangelism. I recommend listening to some of the sermons I’ve posted on here under Podcasts / Sermons category or on my website. Especially anything from Paul Washer. I also highly recommend the sermon Hell is Necessary. Perhaps you will better understand where I am coming from then.
The Church is to make disciples; leave the entertainment and clowning around to the world.
LikeLike
“I used to think/feel the same way you do. Everything was ok as long as you slapped a “Christian” tag on it.”
Woah, woah, woah. I never said that.
I think the problem here is that you don’t understand the motivations behind people who use clowning as a ministry, and the seriousness they approach the subject. You just see people in makeup and big red noses and you condemn.
Since you were kind enough to give me a few references, let me point you to one clowning ministry that has an amazing vision for clowning for the sake of the Gospel, one which is pretty indicative of lots of others:
http://www.youthandfamilyinstitute.org/lifeinchristcircus.asp
And yes, I do equate the methods of the triune God with clowning ministry. I don’t see anything in Scriptures which would cause me to conclude that God would be anything but pleased by His servants using every God-honoring tool in the toolbelt to share His message – clowning included.
LikeLike
Nathan,
As I’ve said before, I don’t see us agreeing in this area any time soon. You merely just shrug your shoulders regarding David Bruce and his promotion of the pro-gay bible, but you constantly come after me for my views. Do you honestly think that my views are potentially more damaging than David Bruce’s?
You need to pick your battles Nathan. Mr. Bruce is condoning sin, (sin is that thing that damns a man’s soul to hell for eternity). Your opposition toward him was minimal at best. Me on the other hand; you actively oppose just about everything I post? Am I condoning sin? Am I encouraging those in sin to continue in its ways? No. I am calling people to holiness, to regain a reverence and a healthy fear for God, to separate themselves from the world, and to study their Bible. What part of that do you oppose and why?
You seem to tolerate so much in the professing Christian culture that surrounds us, that is until you read this blog, then you draw the line with me and oppose almost everything I say.
Why is this so?
Sincerely,
The Pilgrim.
LikeLike
Nathan said, “I think the problem here is that you don’t understand the motivations behind people who use clowning as a ministry, and the SERIOUSNESS they apprach the subject.” [my emphasis added.]
There is so much irony in that statement it makes me chuckle to myself every time I read it.
An act by a Christian is not automatically a “ministry” just because that act has a semi-religious theme. I think we have cheapened the word “ministry” so much that it now means virtually nothing.
LikeLike
Hi Mike,
I’m sure the folks involved in clowning ministry would be happy that you got a chuckle. However, as a former wanna-be clown, I can testify to the seriousness of those who participate in clowning in general, and Christian clowning in particular.
And Pilgrim,
I suppose if I came across David Bruce’s blog, and he was making comments like the ones you’ve attributed to him here, I would probably call him to the carpet, too. I apologize if I seem to be coming at you too much. I meant what I said way back when I first started posting here, that if you and I sat down to talk theology, we would probably find that we agreed on more than we disagreed. And I really don’t oppose everything you post, because you post quite a bit!
Where I find myself disagreeing with most is in the area of entertainment and Christian faith. This is because it is my work, and it isn’t a work I ran into, but was sent into by my Calling. And the Church has kept it’s head out of entertainment for way too long, and the result is a Hollywood that produces 1 good, quality film that a God-honoring family (or adult) can sit down and watch out of maybe 25. To me, one of the reasons why the Church feels under attack so often by the entertainment industry is because the Church of the past couple of hundred years has abandoned the industry to Satan. I am a part of a small group of Christians who want to take it back – who sees Hollywood (for example) as Ninevah, not Sodom and Gomorrah.
Therefore, I am called to work in the Industry, to work with creative people of all stripes, to share my faith along the way, not by getting in the faces of the lost, but by getting into relationship with them, learning to speak their language, loving them in Jesus’ name, WHERE THEY ARE. My job is to obey the Gospel in Matthew 28:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
To me, this doesn’t mean you go after the lost with guns blazing, but with the love of Christ, and not shying away from sharing the Gospel. As I said earlier, I see evidence throughout Scripture that God has given us the freedom to use all the tools in our tool belt to do this. Including clowning, film, music, theater, sports, photography, etc.
And to be creative, as God is creative.
So, again, I apologize if I have come across as mean-spirited, or if it seems I’ve been picking on you and your blog. It challenges me to come here, and I want to be a challenge to you, too.
LikeLike
Nathan:
I am not so opposed to the use of film or other media to spread the gospel, (e.g. the internet). I actually recommend such films as Time Changer, and Most, and Unidentified, and the Passion of the Christ. I do NOT however recommend the trend as of late to try to “find spiritual meaning” from such films as Knocked Up, and other profane movies. It’s the line. Draw it and defend it.
Mike Baker:
Is it true? Do we find ourselves agreeing on something? Mark this date on your calendar. :o)
LikeLike
So, what’s profane about clowning?
LikeLike
Nathan,
In refernce to clowns being profane; I wouldn’t say that in and of themselves they are profane, but when you have an understanding that angels surround God and cry “Holy, Holy, Holy” night and day for eternity, you tend to get a better perspective on who God is and how truly holy He is. Then when those claiming to represent Him (His ambassadors) run around in clown suits, by virtue of their very chosen presentation of the King they represent, they make a mockery of Him.
Ponder for a moment if Muslims tried this to share the gospel of Allah. Do you think for one minute that this behavior would be tolerated? Yet cultural Christianity continues to make light of God, (in word and deed), and fails to truly grasp that it is a frightening thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31)
I still fail to find in the Scriptures where we (pastors, preachers, teachers, prophets, evangelists, and even the church as a whole) are commissioned to entertain.
LikeLike
I thought you might enjoy this story, pilgrim:
http://www.larknews.com/december_2007/secondary.php?page=1
Nathan
LikeLike
Nathan:
How do people come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ? Is it by puppet shows, clowns, rock concerts, and BMX stunt shows?
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Romans 10:17.
In every example of the Gospel being communicated from one person to another, it was done by PREACHING/TEACHING. It was a simple sharing of the gospel (not watered down and sugar-coated of course) No tricks. No gimmicks. Can you provide one Scriptural example in which someone was entertained into confessing Jesus is Lord?
When we get away from the core essence of simply sharing the gospel and making disciples, and head into realms in which we have said to God, “We have a better and more effective idea than You,” then we must be very, very careful.
As I said before, leave the entertaining to the entertainers, and you get out there and preach the Word without fluff and flair.
After all, if God doesn’t draw them, all the clown make-up, smoke machines, laser lights, and disco balls in the world aren’t going to convert one soul. But you’ll have an awful lot of people going through life thinking they’re saved (when they’re really not) because they repeated a prayer once at a Christian “event.”
LikeLike
Pilgrim,
We always agree on those occasions when you happen to be correct and orthodox about something. =P
I actually don’t like to argue. I would prefer to agree with people, but I cannot let error slip by with so much as an objection.
We actually agree on a whole lot of things. For example:
1. The True God is Trinity.
2. The office of the Pope is the antichrist.
3. The church is currently suffering from immaturity and shallow doctrine.
4. T.D. Jakes is a heretic.
5. Rich Warren is teaching everything but the Gospel.
6. Joel Osteen has no idea what he’s talking about.
7. The Jehovah’s Witnesses “inerrantly” contradict themselves on a regular basis.
8. Christ did not call us to clown, rock, or BMX for Jesus.
9. TBN is totally apostate.
10. Abortion is murder.
It’s on other matters like the Sacraments, what constitutes proper exegesis of Scripture, the factual history of the church, the proven lies of Jack Chick, and house church, where your fundamentalist neo-evangelical radicalism causes you to disagree with me. That does not mean that we cannot be friends. 🙂
LikeLike
“Christ did not call us to clown, rock, or BMX for Jesus.”
Did he call us to blog for Jesus?
(ducks and covers)
LikeLike
You are right. He did not call us to blog for Jesus. This is a hobby. This is merely a forum for expressing ideas and opinions. I would never call this a ministry. I think people who consider it a ministry are either silly or arrogant.
A ministry, by its very definition, is the work of a minister. A minister is a called member of the clergy. Laymen can say that they have a ministry, but it is a misuse of the term. People highjack words to stroke their own egos and feel important. John Q Christian may feed the poor in the name of Jesus all the time, but he need not call it his ministry. In the end, it usually boils down to works-righteousness and a desire to be recognized for all the hard work. Having a “ministry” elevates are self importance and makes us feel like we are better than those who do not have a “ministry” like ours. It’s not enough to do good; that good must be called a ministry and those who do good must be called ministers. It is all a bunch of back-slapping and high-fiving if you ask me.
As I have said many times, just because you believe something strongly does not make it true. The truth is that we are all called to perform our individual vocations as obedience to Christ, to love God with all our hearts, and to love and serve our neighbor in all things. That is very different from taking something that you like to do and forcefully injecting Jesus into it to make yourself feel better.
LikeLike
Dear Nathan:
You are comparing apples to oranges. This blog is designed for those who are already saved (and those professing to be saved but are not). This blog is not designed for the “seekers” or the “unchurched” as the lost are referred to today.
This purpose of this blog is to separate error from truth and encourage the Pilgrim to stay on the narrow path. If an unbeliever stumbles upon this blog and gets information from it that leads to a conversion, then praise God! But I am not “marketing” this blog as a “fun, progressive, relevant, contemporary” approach to “church” with bells and whisltes to attract the unregenerate and then switch the bait on them with the “gospel.”
Anyone who reads this blog knows just what they’re getting, and I certainly don’t dumb-down or candy-coat the gospel or the truth. Nor do I attempt to soften the blow of the fact that there are false teacings and false teachers out there that will damn a man’s soul. If I ever water down the truth, I hope someone will call me on it (like you guys).
I also agree with you Mike. Too often people like to slap the label “ministry” on everything they do when in reality it’s something they should be doing anyway by virtue of who they claim is their Lord, Savior and King is. Things that should come naturally.
LikeLike
There is a difference between vocation and ministry. Vocation is your call as a Christian. For example, you may be called to be a doctor or a housewife. All children are called to love and honor their parents. As a Christian, everything that you do in your vocation is service to God.
So when a Christian mother changes the diapers of her two twins for the 10th time in one day, she is serving Christ. Jesus said that even cups of water that are given in His name are as if they were given to Christ Himself. When you show up to work on time, work ethically, and do your duty to your employer, you are doing God’s work. Being a good employee, a good father, and a good citizen is the essence of presenting a good witness for Christ. You are a Christian 24/7. Your entire life is to be one of love, service, and repentance.
Too often, people take a hobby and turn it into the thing that they feel is their work for the Kingdom. They take this ONE thing and make it the only thing that they do for Jesus at the expense of the mundane things that are just work or just life. This is false doctrine. Many modern protestant churches want to know “What are you doing for Jesus?” Many well-meaning Christians will ask you “Are you doing X? Are you doing Y?” If you can sing, it is your obligation to be in the choir (regardless of your other talents or duties). If you can write, you should be writing on Christian themes. A Christian music artist is doing God’s work while a secular artist who is Christian is just doing a job. If you do not fit into some corporate concept of outreach, you are not living for God as you should. It is tyranny and heretical conduct that damages souls and misleads people about what the Christian life is all about.
We always want to exalt work in the church or the glamorous ministries as some how more holy or more useful to God. This is the old Roman Catholic monasticism. We left this inequality between Christians during the Reformation. Now, many Protestants want to go back to monasticism in the form of “ministries”. The word “ministry” has become the new holy life that earns merit and favor with God. If you have a “ministry” you are doing well (like a monk). If you are doing something that is not considered “ministry” you are not doing what you should (like a peasant farmer). This kind of thinking is absolute rubbish.
The last shall be first and the least shall be greatest. We are called to service and humility not glamour and prestige. The homemakers, boiler cleaners, and janitors do as much good (if not more) than some of these contrived “ministries”. The farmer who grows wheat is feeding as many of God’s people as the homeless shelter.
Pilgrim,
Since you want us to call you out on watering down the truth, I will be the first. Do not cast your lot into the proven liar, Jack Chick. He soils the value of this website with his proven errors and blatant misrepresentations. I have proven on another thread that his works are not to be trusted. His anti-Catholic bigotry has sent him off the deep end. It is possible to oppose the Pope and the errors of Roman Catholicism without becoming a kook or using kooks to argue your case. You do a great deal of damage to your cause by using resources that have absolutely no credibility.
His misrepresentations are a matter of public record. Even many non-Christians know that what he is saying is complete tripe. His claims are so foolish–so beyond the realm of common sense, that he is the subject of ridicule and derision from all sides of theological debate. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. One cannot point out and correct error when their own arguements are full of objective falsehoods, lies, and mistakes.
LikeLike
Mike,
Your comments (here and in the other thread) are actually the first I’ve ever heard of this stuff regarding Chick. I actually like a couple of his tracts for witnessing & evangelism (like THE EXECUTION and THE LONG TRIP). I agree, using lies and deceit to make your case only hurts it in the end.
Like I said, I haven’t heard anything negative about Chick before. Do you have any links that discuss some of these issues? Thanks.
LikeLike
Pilgrim,
Jack Chick is to Christianity what Rev. Jesse Jackson is to the civil rights movement: more craziness and harm than good. The errors that I pointed out in “The Death Cookie” should be enough to cast the credibility of every tract in doubt, but if you need more information:
1. Read the Six Part Roman Catholic response to his accusations to get both sides of the story: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp
You don’t have to agree with their dogma to see that they are being accused of some things that border on the ridiculous. The article makes some very rational and valid points that have more to do with common sense than the theological differences that we might have with the Pope. It sites Protestant sources and many Protestants refer people to this site to answer questions about Jack Chick.
It is possible to strongly oppose the Roman Catholic Church without hating her and spreading lies about her.
2. For a fair (if not complete) treatment of the tracts, check out the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_tracts
Wikipedia is not always accurate, but it tries to be fair and impartial. When it calls your work overtly anti-catholic and puts you in several wiki categories that use the word “discrimination”, that is a clue that you are not preaching the truth in Christian love, but from a place called kook-ville.
3. Though I have not read his books, here is an author who writes against Jack Chick: http://www.authorsden.com/garydalecearley
4. It isn’t just Christians. Unbelievers ridicule this guy on a regular basis. It is quite possible that Jack Chick is the most parodied Christian author in the secular world. Many non-Christians hate his guts and think that he is a crazy bigot. When you hand out one of these tracts, you may be handing it to someone who knows what kind of fraud Jack Chick is… or worse, has heard other people use his bad example and blatant falsehoods to slander all of Christianity. The tract might ruin YOUR credibility with the guy that you are talking to.
For example: [CONTENT WARNING! Some of these guys are pretty vulgar! Read at your own risk!]
http://www.yourmomsbasement.com/archives/2006/11/galactus_is_com.html
http://www.atetracts.com/
http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/archive.html
http://www.enterthejabberwock.com/?cat=12
————————————————-
I can site more resources if you need them. To be honest, you do not need any of these things. You are intelligent and you love the truth. All you have to do is read some of Jack Chick’s stuff with discernment and you start to see all of the massive leaps of logic and total falsehoods. He makes claims that are impossible to prove and states them as facts. The best website I can give you to refute Chick Tracts is:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp
Go read them for yourself. They are absolutely nuts. When they aren’t nuts, they make stuff up. When they don’t do that, they cast unfounded accusations. When they don’t do that, they insult the people that we are trying to save [with bigoted stereotypes and lies about Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Atheists, Etc]. When they don’t do that, they are virtually devoid of doctrinal content and Scripture. Jack Chick is part of the problem. He contributes to the shallow, modern Church.
I own a copy of his trashy book, “Smokescreens”. If you want, I can quote directly from it all day to prove my point. A radical Fundamentalist gave me this tripe after becoming concerned for my sanity and my salvation. Apparently, defending the Roman Catholic Church in those places where she is right means that I have no hope for salvation. I read it cover to cover. In that book, he makes absolutely silly claims that you would have to be a total fool to accept. For example: TV shows and characters, like Father Mulcahy from MASH, are part of the massive Roman Catholic conspiracy. In fact, most Protestants are infiltrated by the whore [Rome]. Did you know that the Cold War was created and inflamed by the Holy See?
I now quote from Jack Chick:
“The Jesuits were busy on many fronts. The John Birch Society blossomed, aided by the Jesuits, because it served their purpose to have the attention of the Protestants shifted from the Vatican to Communism. At this time, Senator McCarthy was riding high. Publishers stopped publishing books exposing the whore and turned their attention to Communism. Some Christian publishers were bought out, others didn’t want to make a stand because it would raise eyebrows.”
“So the Vatican was succeeding in their goals. Their boys, planted in Protestant denominations, frowned on anti-Catholic sermons and discouraged them across the nation. We were locked into a cold war with Russia. Hollywood, influenced by a powerful Catholic lobby, furnished us with films like “Song of Bernadette” and “Going My Way,” and a number of exciting films glorifying the Catholic faith. On the other hand, they pushed movies like “Elmer Gantry” showing crooked Protestant evangelists. Do you remember “Dragnet?” on television? The Christian was always pictured with a big Bible, smiling after he had strangled Grandma up in the attic. And always, the priests were the good guys. Just like in the popular television series called MASH. You see, we are hit psychologically on many fronts.”
Here is the webpage where you can read those Jack Chick paragraphs for yourself: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_06.asp
————————————————-
How about this one? I now quote Jack Chick again:
“The three big defenders of the Roman Catholic faith were Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All three had concordats with the Vatican. When the Nazi war machine swept through the Balkans on the way to attack Russia, Yugoslavia had become a Nazi occupied country.”
“The pope despised the Russian Orthodox members. They were called Serbians and they were marked for death in Yugoslavia. They were given one choice: to convert to Catholicism, or die.”
“Why were they killed? Why did the pope have such a vendetta against the Russian Orthodox? As we said in our Crusaders book, THE GODFATHERS, the communist party was created by the Vatican to destroy one of her greatest enemies, the Russian Orthodox church. The communists had double-crossed the pope and refused to destroy the Russian Orthodox church members and at last, Pope Pius XII had created a machine to do what the communists had failed to do – butcher every Orthodox church member and their clergy. Let’s see how this was accomplished.”
“The Catholic priests changed their robes for the uniforms of the dreaded Ustachi killer squads, and led the most barbaric, brutal raids upon those people and practiced satanic torture never before known in this century. We are not talking 800 years ago. We are talking 1940. I was in high school then.”
Here is where you can find Jack Chick saying that: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_03.asp
————————————————-
How does the Pope do all of this evil? He has satanic, Nazi minions. The Jesuits are among his agents of darkness. Jack Chick’s website:
“The author exposes the Vatican’s involvement in world politics, intrigues, and the fomenting of wars throughout history. It appears, beyond any doubt, that the Roman Catholic institution is not a Christian church and never was. The poor Roman Catholic people have been betrayed by her and are facing spiritual disaster. Paris shows that Rome is responsible for the two great world wars.”
“Author Edmond Paris explains why he wrote this book… ”
“The public is practically unaware of the overwhelming responsibility carried by the Vatican and its Jesuits in the start of the two world wars — a situation which may be explained in part by the gigantic finances at the disposition of the Vatican and its Jesuits, giving them power in so many spheres, especially since the last conflict.”
Here is where you can find Jack Chick and his pal Edmond Paris saying that: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0191.asp
————————————————-
According to his book “Smokescreens”, these Jesuits are helping to orchestrate the take-over of America. They are almost finished!
Quoting Jack, “Jesuits began arriving in America as early as the second group of Pilgrims. They used different names with I.D.’s. They were followed years later when the Vatican sent multitudes of Catholic families from England, Ireland and France posing as Protestants, into the colonies. These were plants.”
What does Jack say they did next? “The next major move by the Jesuits was to destroy or control all the Christian schools across America. Throughout the years, Jesuits, working undercover, have gotten into special committees on school boards to remove the emphasis of the Bible and replace it with psychology as found in the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius de Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Society.”
What was the next part of their master plan from the Pope? “The third stage was to move into the courts and legislation, and branches of the judiciary to take over as judges and lawyers, in order to manipulate the Constitution in their favor until it could be changed. Once this was accomplished, the thrust was into politics to capture the political parties. Then the military and the newspapers. Even back in the times of Lincoln over half the newspapers in the United States were controlled by the Vatican.”
This is all leading to the domination of America and the end of the world. Jack Chick then says, “Let’s wake up, beloved. We’re not a bunch of little two-year olds anymore. Pastors need to wake up. You deacons and church members need to wake up because your kids are going to be destroyed in a few short years if you don’t. I’m referring especially to those pastors who are pushing bubbly love to everyone, and who turn white and break into a cold sweat when anything controversial comes along. Do you think the priests of Rome respect you for that? Let me tell you, pastors, they hate the ground you walk on and hold you in nothing but contempt.”
Jack then warns of the next holocaust and threatens every Protestant pastor with death. He says, “They secretly look at you like scum under their feet. I was recently told that in 1949, an ex-Jesuit priest told a Rev. Eubanks in California, that when the Vatican takes control of the United States, every pastor and his family will be shot in the head.”
Jack Chick gets desperate. He pleads, “Where are you going to run? To Mexico? It’s gone. Canada? It’s almost gone. Ireland? Forget it. They’re [Roman Catholics] picking it off now. No place to go, beloved. Only to the Lord, and time is running out. We are on a razor’s edge.”
Here is where you can read Jack Chick saying all of that: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_11.asp
———————————————————
Really?!? That is absolute conspiracy theory. I understand the Fundamentalist fascination with End Times prophecy, but there are limits. This goes beyond that Tim LaHaye fiction and into pure insanity and fear. This is beyond paranoid. Please tell me that you do not agree with these kinds of wild statements. They are indefensible!
…and remember, the guy you give the tract to may have read some or all of this.
LikeLike
…and “The Execution” is a terrible tract that confuses and teaches false doctrine:
1. It depicts Mom [aka Jesus] as unable to reform sinners. It shows her powerlessly begging Sonny [aka the sinner] to “be good”. It never says that Sonny [aka the sinner] is incapable of being good. It places the power to be good totally in the hands of the sinner: that is pure Pelagian heresy. From the beinging it presents the idea that Sonny should be good like normal people [like the sister and the people who are afraid of him], but he refuses to be. For ALL have sinned… not just Sonny.
2. It depicts God as an unsympathetic prison guard. The guards [aka God] that kill mom [aka Jesus] instead of Sonny [aka the sinner] either have Hitler mustaches, flat tops, or angry expressions… and they never show love for Sonny [aka the sinner] and they appear to despise him for what happened.
3. Sonny [aka the sinner] is released from prison purely by the objective execution of mom [aka Jesus]. Sonny’s subjective faith [or lack there of] played no part in his rescue. Sonny was released from the penalty without even knowing about his mom’s death. Sonny did not have to believe in mom [aka Jesus] to enjoy his freedom.
4. Sonny [aka the sinner] never repented. He was desperate and afraid, but he never repented. That sets this “desperation and fear” theme up for the prayer of repentence… and makes it about not wanting to go to hell instead of sorrow over sin.
5. It depicts God [the prison system] and Jesus [the mom] as two seperate and independent entities. It teaches that Jesus [the mom] came up with salvation without the knowledge of God [the prison system] and had to pitch the idea to make it happen. Without Jesus [the mom] coming forward with a plea for substitutionary atonement, God [the prison system] would have let the sinner [Sonny] die.
6. It teaches that the only thing that damns us to hell is the list of universal ethical infractions that God keeps record of. It never addresses the real problem of humanity: willful rejection of God.
7. It tells us that people need to pray the salvation prayer. It is presented as an overt human work. According to the tract you have to “to get rid of your sins, do this.” If you do not do that work, you “will be like Sonny… Guilty!” It says that guilty people will be cast away… but earlier Sonny was forgiven and set free. The matter of FAITH as the difference between guilt and condemnation is never really covered. It muddles Law and Gospel and confuses the difference between guilt and forgiveness. It appears to the unbeleiver that God is totally arbitrary: Sonny lives without knowing about Mom’s sacrifice, but I go to hell if I don’t pray this prayer. In the end, this version of salavation is not about Christ at all. It comes down to one human act in response to intellectually learning about Christ: Pray the prayer. The tract teaches that people ultimately save themselves.
7. The tract only talks about the passive obedience of Jesus and ignores the active obedience of Jesus. It never mentions that Christ was an unblemished sacrifice or that He was totally without sin.
LikeLike
…and I don’t know how to count to 8. =P
LikeLike