The Face Of Chick?

by Jimmy Akin

in Non-Catholic Apologists

JackchickWhat you are looking at may be the first known, recent photo of Jack T. Chick (left) to emerge on the Internet.

It is found on the home page of Victory Baptist Church in Clarkston, Michigan and is captioned as "Jack Chick & Pastor Bob Nogalski, Summer 2006."

The figure alleged to be Chick is holding a copy of his tract Bad Bob! and pointing to Pastor Nogalski because of the similarity of Pastor Nogalski’s life story to that of the character Bad Bob.

The Victory Baptist Church web site also includes Pastor Nogalski’s testimony regarding his life and how it intersects with Bad Bob’s.

VIEW THE PICTURE IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT.

READ PASTOR NOGALSKI’S TESTIMONY.

READ "BAD BOB!"

Now, the question on the minds of most JA.O readers will be: Is the photo of the reclusive Chick authentic?

In our day and age, photos certainly can lie, and so I’d be interested to know what PhotoChoppers can make of the picture’s authenticity. That’s a subject I can’t speak to, but perhaps we’ll hear from some of them in the combox.

What I can say is this: The man in the picture does look (apart from the comic expression on his face) much like I remember Jack Chick looking when I met him at the premier of his film, Light of the World.

YOU CAN READ ABOUT THAT HERE.

And here’s the picture I drew of Chick after the event:

Jackchick2_1

I can also say that the setting in which the picture was taken lends some credibility of the photo. It looks to me like the descriptions of the foyer of Chick Publications that I’ve read. I would guess that Pastor Nogalski visited Chick Publications in Summer 2006, met Chick, and (impressed by the pastor’s testimony regarding his connection with Bad Bob) Chick let the picture be taken, likely not realizing that it would find its way onto the Internet.

I’ve thought about driving up to visit Chick’s offices. They’re just a couple of hours up the road from me. But I’ve never done it.

Maybe after this picture, I will.

(BTW, a TEN GALLON CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I certainly like Jack T. Chick!! The content of most of his tracts are great, spreading Christ's Gospel.
All he needs do is repent of attacking the Eucharist,other Sacraments,& Catholic conspiracy nonsense.
I hope he will stand useful in angering & embarrassing Catholics to the point of them re-dedicating themselves to their faith fully, and repenting of doctrinal compromise.
God uses people that way. See Habbakak

An interesting point that should probably be eluded to relates to the tract "Are Roman Catholics Christian." Within the tract there is a brief discussion of the Eucharist. The contents claim that this round wafer has its origins in ancient Egypt and represents the sun god Osiris.
However, there is a serious problem with this statement. In ancient Egypt, the sun god was not Osiris but rather "Ra" (many probably also recall in popular culture the reference to Ra in the film "Raiders of the Lost Ark"--"the head piece to the staff of Ra.") later subsumed into "Horus."
Osiris, on the other hand, was the god of life, death, and fertility. The so-called Eucharist-style wafers were not made in the shape of a round wafer. In reality, these "wafers" were actually cakes made in the shape of the statue of Osiris.
This information can be easily obtained online, even at wikipedia.
Jack Chick's faulty information on the above subject was obtained from the book: "The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife."

I remember his tracts and cruddy vitriol back in the 70s. I used to go to a church in my early teens that preached out of the same mixed up bible he did. That upbringing has led me into the secular humanism I now believe in today.
But I have one last question for all the Christians out there who may read this in the future: Exactly how many Onward Christian soldiers does it take to turn the other cheek?
Come visit my website and leave comments, so that we might engage in a lively debate. Beware, however, it's a den of iniquity. Have a great life, all. There's more to it than invective and ultimatums.

Congrats on you writing a book on this! I am greatly looking forward to purchasing it. I would love to hand out some booklets counter attacking his faction flyers

JACK CHICK COMES FROM THE SAME BAPTIST BIGOTRY I CAME FROM, (I AM A TRADITIONALIST/CONVERT TO THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITH). MINDSETS LIKE CHICKY BABY ARE NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT, THE DUDES A HATEMONGER OF THE WORST SELF-RIGHTIOUS KIND NOT UNCOMMON AMOUNG A WHOLE "HELL" OF A LOT OF BAPTISTS AND EVANGELICAL "CHRISTIANS'. IF ONLY THERE REALLY WAS AN OPUS DEI OR JESUIT CONSPIRACY THEN MAYBE THEY COULD INJECT CHICK WITH CANCER OF THE ASSHOLE WHICH IN HIS CASE IS BETWEEN HIS NOSE AND HIS CHIN.

Poor Mr Chick. Nobody likes him.
Does he care? I doubt it.
Gays, catholics, liberals and scientists rant a lot about him, truth or not. I wouldn't mind him or those who follow him. If you care, then that's your buisness. No matter what everyone is ranting about, he still breathes, he still draw. He still has "faith", he still has ideas, evil or not. I mean, look at the dude! He looks happy and satisfied! Does he give a damn about us? NOT AT ALL.
So just ignore him and just educate your people to counter him, if you are just complaining and yelling like little girls and persuade people then you're just like him.

So you see nothing wrong with anti-Catholic bigotry and lying about what Catholics believe. Your point?

I read a lot chick publications at high school. I enjoyed every bit of it as it communicates the Bible in a simple form for my understanding.
I see nothing wrong with this great work of evangelism.

Don't know what happened. Let's try again.
What's missing is "and to which HE imputes certain teachings"

Try reading the above posts.
Here, I'll go real slow:
Chick....does....not....know....what....the....Catholic....Church....teaches.
He....has....in....his....mind....a....straw....man....church....that....HE....calls...."The....Roman....Catholic....Church....and....to....which....HE....imputes....certain....teachings.
Any....resemblance....between....Chick's....straw....man....church....and....the....Catholic....Church....is....purely....coincidental.
Got it?

Jack Chick maybe seen as extremist by catholics, well practising catholics for that manner, but please try and prove or provide some evidence that he is wrong when exposing the errors of the church when he is using biblical text to back his claims. One of my best mates is a catholic, however he like most practising catholics call upon other forms of literature to try and prove that the catholic faith is the only way to heaven.
Chick like myself im sure relies on %100 biblical text as it is the "textus receptus" original text to understand the true nature of salvation and to build a strong and direct one on one relationship with Jesus.

Hi Everyone, Interesting photo of Jack Chick. I have always been curious as to what he looks like. I grew up with Chick Comics in the late 80's, and also read the Alberto series and also the two books by "Rebecca Brown". It is an established fact that Rebecca Brown is a fraud and it also appears likely that Alberto was also a fraud. Whlist I respect Jack Chick's efforts in evangilism, I feel he should admit he has made mistakes in the past and publish this on his website. Otherwise he is letting the dangerous teaching of Rebecca Brown go on (www.harvestwarriors.com).

What was Simon Peters wifes name?

See Jarnor!
Did you read what Mary quoted from Scripture?
;^P

who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come."
(oops)

Luke 18 is even more relevant to the question.
Then Peter said, "We have given up our possessions and followed you."
He said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God

Let's just call it a gentle correction, Dan.

Jalnor 23
"...We obviously know that he was married given that his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible,".
Dan Hunter
"eick,
I was wrong.
St Peter was never married."
We were doing soooo good!.

St Peter was never married.
Try Matthew 8:14. The fact that St. Peter had a mother-in-law tells us that he was married, but it says nothing about St. Peter's wife (such as whether she was even still living at the time).

eick,
I was wrong.
St Peter was never married.
Ut Prosim

erick,
Sacred Scripture.
Ut Prosim

"I merely stated a fact about Simon Peter leaving his wife to follow Christ."
Where is this "fact" found?.

Jarnor 23,
I merely stated a fact about Simon Peter leaving his wife to follow Christ.
I did not not state it in an inflamatory fashion.
There was no ad hominem attacks involved.
He chose to give away everything to follow the eternally higher call and that wasn't something He was Someone, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
You have no ground to stand on with your ill-placed admonishment.
I spoke nothing untrue.
I spoke nothing in a mean spirit.
Esau,
What basic fundamental truths of Catholic Dogma do you disagree with me on?
Ut Prosim.

7 [26] Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple's family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62).

Jarnor and I have experienced this firsthand -- last month we were put into a situation (concerning an invalid marriage) where we had to choose to either follow Christ's teachings or keep peace within the family. We chose the former instead of the latter and it's been a rough road, but ultimately worth it.

I think this is the few instances the NAB footnotes actually got it correct:
7 [26] Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple's family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62).

Please note, not calling you an atheist, but showing how that line of thought on "hate" is often misunderstood, sometimes to great detriment for the soul.

I've read it, but I have yet to see where it says "Thou should treat your wife and kids like dirt, also thy father and thy mother, to follow me." You're translating "hate" in the way atheists often do, to show how much you must detest them (and, to an atheist, why God is bad). Did Christ mean this? Not as I've heard it said by priests. They say that hate is said to show that compared to your love of God even the love you show your family is as hate. And I DON'T live in a happy hippyland diocese or parish, thank you.

...rather to put first things first and not make excuses.
For the record, I agree with this though.

Hey, I got a good one back for ya, "Honor thy father and thy mother." Jesus DID say to keep those.
Read your bible, Jarnor23:
Lk 14:26:
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (DRV)

Oh, by the way, do you work? No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.
This is why the Magesterium can help us with unclear verses instead of us being little Popes of our own. I left Lutheranism because I no longer believed in that garbage.

Hey, I got a good one back for ya, "Honor thy father and thy mother." Jesus DID say to keep those.
The most pious priests I've ever met mention that the reason Jesus said that to the man is that He knew it was an excuse, the point is not to leave rotting carcasses in the street, but rather to put first things first and not make excuses.
However, if you really want to debate that Jesus meant for dead bodies to be strewn about willy nilly, please, by all means.

Jarnor23,
I hardly agree with Dan in many things -- even in this case; however, as regards the Gospel, remember what Jesus said in both Luke and Matthew:
Luke 9: 59-62
59 But he said to another: Follow me. And he said: Lord, suffer me first to go and to bury my father.
60 And Jesus said to him: Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
61 And another said: I will follow thee, Lord; but let me first take my leave of them that are at my house.
62 Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.

You know Dan, to most people, that sounds an awful lot like Peter being a jerk who abandoned his family and wife to the streets. We obviously know that he was married given that his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible, and that his primary calling was to specifically lead Christ's church after His ascension. However, from the mother-in-law story, we know he didn't say "hey, I'll never see you guys again, good luck".
Your words can give the wrong impression there, even though, as for all Christians, Christ must come first in his life, even to the point of giving it away. Best to be careful in how we phrase things, especially where our separated brethren are clearly about.

Desert Fart:
Do you learn all your history from absurd Anti-Catholic tracts?
Perhaps you should first learn genuine Church History before flaunting your ignorance by making such ludicrous statements!

Desert Hawk:
Do you learn all your history from Anti-Catholic tracts?
Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you actually learned about Church history rather than flaunt your ignorance with your ludicrous statements!

Bill912 - I was going to ask the same questions. You beat me to it. :-)

Desert Hawk:
First sentence: Evidence?
Second sentence: Evidence?
Third sentence: So what?

Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity founded the Catholic Church.
"That all may be one as I and the Father are One".
Christ gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom and made him the first Supreme Pontiff, or "Bridge Builder".
Yes, Simon was married, but he gave up wife and family for an eternally higher calling.
God bless you.
Ut Prosim

The Catholic Church was founded by Roman Emperor Constantine. Peter was not the first Pope. The Bible clearly says that Peter was married.

Hello, I'm a convert to the Catholic Church,praise GOD. I've heard about Mr. Chick & his stuff for years. Most of his tracts are inspiring, but his anti-Catholic tracts are terribly evil(though at my age,so funny,I can't get offended,they're so comical) I have a genuine love for Mr. Chick,and have and will continue to pray for him so he's not eternally lost for being a false witness. What makes me the most angry,sad,and outraged are the Church's present embracing of the sick theory of Evolution,it's belief that Islam and other religions are good just like Xstianity,& Catholics do nothing to spread the gospel of Xst,they're even ignorant of their faith. Instead of not speaking to me or blowing me off like everybody else, e-mail me back with your comments at: Censotti1941@peoplepc.com I'm sorry for hogging the space on this webiste, but I had no Catholic background. Catholics believe only Catholics have Jesus in the Eucharist. But nobody ever told me. Therefore,I was kept from Jesus Xst all these years. How selfish!!!!!!! Fellow Catholics,explain yourselves!!!!!!! EVIL!

Hello, I'm a convert to the Catholic Church,praise GOD. I've heard about Mr. Chick & his stuff for years. Most of his tracts are inspiring, but his anti-Catholic tracts are terribly evil(though at my age,so funny,I can't get offended,they're so comical) I have a genuine love for Mr. Chick,and have and will continue to pray for him so he's not eternally lost for being a false witness. What makes me the most angry,sad,and outraged are the Church's present embracing of the sick theory of Evolution,it's belief that Islam and other religions are good just like Xstianity,& Catholics do nothing to spread the gospel of Xst,they're even ignorant of their faith. Instead of not speaking to me or blowing me off let everybody else, anybody with a good heart out there please e-mail me with your comments at: Censotti1941@peoplepc.com. I also create my own tracts,which I'll be happy to mail to an interested party.

Chuck,
Jesus will answer why He granted this authority to Peter better than I could - so ask Him.
Matthew 16:18-19 is where Peter gets his authority - an authority to bind and loose. Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church holds true - after 2,000 years, She is still here and continues to grow every year. Pope Benedict XVI is Peter's current successor.
You might want to check out catholic.com to learn more. Also, David Currie's book, Born Fundamentalst, Born Again Catholic was instrumental in my reversion.
"http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fundamentalist-Again-Catholic/dp/089870569X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197040071&sr=8-1

Chuck - the consequence of the separation is disunion within the Body of Christ. Our Lord addresses this in John 17.
Christians provide a much stronger witness in the world when we are united; Satan does everything he can to perpetuate division.
And, it is my understanding that "Bible only" Christians do not accept the authority granted to Peter and his successors which is a fundamental difference in our understanding of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

JRG (or anyone else who cares to answer),
As a follow up to the "bible only" question above... those who don't realize or willingly reject it and choose to be seperated... is there a consequence of the seperation? If so, then what?
-Chuck

Yes, I meant the New Testament(I need more coffee to shake my brain awake!!!!)
All scripture is indeed good for teaching, especially as it is divinely inspired. But that verse doesn't say that ONLY the Bible is good or sufficient for teaching. Also, the only scriptures that Paul could have been referring to are the Old Testament, as the canon of the New Testament had not yet been established, nor even completely written at that time. While the Old Testament is good for teaching, we wouldn't want to base all our beliefs on the Old Testament (or we'd be wishing one another "Happy Hannukah" this week).

jrg,
what do you mean by "bible only brothers and sisters". I don't understand the implication. I assume you mean there's a difference between "them" and Catholics...

"If I am correct then doesn't that mean anyone who is sincere about their profession of faith in Christ qualifies as part of the "church of the living God"?"
There's only one Church Jesus established, so those who are sincere about their profession of faith in Christ are Catholic - but our baptized, "Bible only" brothers and sisters either don't realize this, or rejecte it outright and willingly choose to remain separated.

To be honest your post doesn't really seem to answer my questions, so if someone else wouldn't mind chiming end I would greatly appreciate it...

My above post wasn't nearly adequate. Maybe somebody else can pick me up.

Previous post:

Next post: