Excuse me, brethren: could we maybe have a reality check? If you're looking for deep spiritual doctrine in a salvation tract, you're looking in the wrong place. That's not what they're written for, and, anyway, an unbeliever doesn't understand spiritual things. Tracts are written (if they're any good) to be easily understood by pagans. The difference between "sin" and "sins" is lost on a pagan, if he's just coming under conviction for the first time.

The girl who led me to Christ witnessed to me for two years, and sometimes gave me tracts; specifically, she used Campus Crusade's "Four Spiritual Laws." That is not a very good tract. But the Lord used her to "win" me. At the time of my conversion, I had no idea what a "sin nature" was; I just knew that I was a sinner, because I knew myself!

I'm not saying that tracts should be written carelessly, or contain unsound doctrine; if a tract preaches the "prosperity gospel," for example, it's not of God. But that's not the kind of thing we're talking about.

Criticizing a ministry as fruitful as Chick's, because of a word or a phrase, is a classic example of gnat-straining and camel-gobbling.