I am an Atheist (aka Brian McLaren’s Worship Circus)

Ok, I know that I am probably walking the thin line of blasphemy with this one. It’s pretty much a risk I take nearly every time I open my mouth. And I’m quite certain God has a special “time out” corner in heaven for those who criticize worship songs other people have written. But I just don’t know what the heck to make of this one!

Now I love Brian McLaren’s books and other writings. I’m using the word LOVE here. I’m probably one of the few people on earth who holds to a more conservative (or reformed) theology that doesn’t think he’s a complete heretic. In fact I think that for the most part he’s on to something.

With that said, let me kindly suggest to Mr. McLaren that he stick to writing books and pastoring his flock, and leave the songwriting to more seasoned professionals.

You see, Brian fancies himself a bit of a musician. And apparently now that he’s gained a some notoriety as an author, he’s using the opportunity to bring some of his songs to the general public. He’s even enlisted the help of his Enter the Worship Circle friends – whom I typically dig – for the project.

I just feel so… well… weird about this song. First, it feels kind of icky to me to sing verses that essentially thank God that I’m not like those Christians. And while I agree with political/social message of the lyrics, I’m just not comfortable bringing that into a worship context. Plus, I’m trying to get over that whole “being defined by what I’m not” thing.

Now the lyrics of the bridge – I kinda dig. They may make me want to spin barefoot in a field of daises while finger painting, but I’ve hung around a lot of hippies in my day so I’m cool with that.

But the chorus! I can’t find any semblance of form or structure or simple music theory anywhere! It’s so…. Emergent! 😆

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “I am an Atheist (aka Brian McLaren’s Worship Circus)

  1. Ok, musically speaking I like the score. I like the sound of Water Deep & 100 Portraits. However, lyrically it is terrible no it is beyond terrible. In fact it sounds like he is doing what he is accussing the “church” of doing. — DH

  2. Yeah, that whole “I can’t believe what they believe” part reminds me of the “Oh weeee oh, woaah oh” part of the Wizard of Oz.

    I’m fine with the music until the chorus. When the horns (clarinet?) get all squirly it’s just about all I can handle.

    One line I had a problem with was…

    “I am an atheist when it comes to the mission of politicians using religion as ammunition…”

    Now in principle, I don’t disagree. Nobody wants their faith to be co-opted by a political party or office. And some would make the argument that the Evangelical Church in America has become synonymous with the agenda of the political right.

    My problem with this line is McLaren’s hypocrisy. He is one of the “friends” who participate in the Jim Wallis and friends blog called “God’s Politics.” It’s a largely leftist political blog, the basic premise of which is that they are advocating God’s politics. Now mind you, I’m a lefty, so I enjoy what the blog has to offer. However, they invoke God’s name into their political agenda far more shamelessly than the Conservative’s ever have.

    That makes me feel weird about giving this song any credibility as a “worship” song. It feels more divisive than glorifying.

  3. This song and video have irreparably damaged at least three of my senses.

    Whatever your ideology, if your worship song features condemnations of anyone (“I don’t believe what they believe”), guess what? You’re part of the problem.

    As an amateur video editor and designer, I’m even more offended by the video than I am by the song. Text zooms should be subtle and pleasant, and should ENHANCE the viewer’s ability to read!

  4. I didn’t listen to the song, but I have met Brian McLaren and he’s the real deal. My name’s Matt Casper, and I wrote a book with guy much like Brian named Jim Henderson… called “Jim & Casper Go to Church.”

    Anyway, saw the McLaren post, thought I’d say “hi.”

  5. I should preface my thoughts by saying that I suscribe to many of the emergent churches ideologies but I am on a whole pretty conservative in my theology. I believe in a lifestyle of non violence and would consider myself as a seperatist politically speaking.

    I find this “worship” song a bit frustrating for several reasons.

    1. Musically its certainlly not in my tastes but that is neither here nor there. However I hold to the belief that congregational worship music is for the purpose of the body of believers to be able to corporately proclaim with one voice what the believe as a whole (Dietrich Bonhoeffer “Life Together”). This song musically does not lend itself to congregational singing its dissonant and difficult to groan along with.

    2. Theologically this song seems to miss the belief in the God who judges, the God of wrath the God who will not bear unrighteousness indefinately.

    3. I personally believe that the way God chose to deal with peoples of the world in the Old Testament (ie Death, consuming by fire, worldwide floods, swallowing by the earth, genocide) has changed because of the coming of Christ. I believe God deals differently with the peoples of the world now however I believe that God is only prolonging his wrath and judgement on this world so that more will come to know him. I think we are remiss to ignore and in essence say we don’t believe in a God who will come upon the world at his appointed time with great wrath and judgement as described in Revelation.

    4. Lastly “I can’t believe what they belive but I believe in you” What does this mean who is this directed towards? I feel as if Mclaren is debating with Islam at first but then there is this hint at the religious right. My biggest problem with this statement is the word “but”. The word “but” gives credibility to the existence of the God that the people who Mclarren dissagrees with believe in. “I dont believe in the doctrine of Islamic jihad but I believe in you” “I don’t believe in converting people to God by the sword (either muslim or christian) but I belive in God.” “I dont believe in using God in politics but i believe in God”. Who is this you? This God? Is it the Chirstian God or Islamic God?

    I speak better than I type so its probably incoherent at best.

    Summary: Bad Song from a guy who generally has some good thoughts.

  6. If no one will come right out and say it, I will. The song STINKS! It is really, really bad. Pathetic. Annoying. Embarassing.

    I’ve written hundreds of Christian songs and worship songs. I have only a couple of dozen I let anyone hear. But I haven’t written ANYTHING that bad…ever!

    Is this song really for real? It has all the earmarks of being a spoof. Are you sure you’re not being punk’d? If not, then this is the functional equivalent of Pat Robertson doing a worship rap. If this is an example of emergent worship from one of their best of breed thinkers, they’re in big trouble.

  7. I am at the point in my life (married, 3 kids, “normal job”, buying a house) that I need/want people in my life that inspire me to follow Jesus because of their joy, their love, their patience, their peace, etc. I want to belong to the Church that is defined by its gifts of the Spirit.
    The world does not need another group of people telling them, whether explicitly or in emergent worship, to join their group because “we’re not like those other guys” or “wouldn’t you feel cool if you could point the finger like we do?”. (See various CS Lewis writings about being part of the “in” crowd, the clic, the clubs, etc.)
    I don’t know. I just want to be enouraged and I want to encourage others with my words and actions of the love of Christ.
    To sum up: this song depresses me and makes me think about darkness, strife and the differences that divide us.

  8. john keane! john keane! go sox, buddy 🙂

    anyways, i don’t like worship music much. taize is good, and the old chants are nice, and there are some old timey hymns that knock off my proverbial socks. but few worship songs make me not just collapse due to overt hokiness. oh well, just my opinion. if they help others, wicked cool. the thing about this dude is common i think w/ many pastors (and people in general) who think they can do music, too. no! stop! stick to what you’re good at, buddy. reminds me of this pastor back in maine, greatest speaking voice i’ve ever heard, but the man is completely in love with himself (or so it appears) and has this band trying to resurrect petra – God help us! – which he fronts and just needs to stop! it’s awful. oh well, i’m totally off point. i was just jazzed to see john keane’s name 🙂

  9. John Keane’s a fraud. He checks in once in a while whenever Liz lets him out of his cage.

    He has good takes, yet seldom offers them. 😆

    Oh and “Lord,” have you read McLaren? I highyly recommend his “New Kind of Christian” to you. Definitely up your alley. I’d love to hear your feedback!

    BTW, for the record…

    For whatever reason this post has generated the most traffic and the most “unsolicited” replies in the history of SB.com. Thanks to everyone!

    It won’t make the song better, but it will enrich the conversation.

  10. Ok, the comments of sticking to what your are good at kind of remind me of when Pat Boone decided he should record a metal album. If you haven’t heard it you are not missing anything.

  11. heh I am pretty much a ghost of late wrestling with the whole internet, sports, media thing on a whole I suppose.

    Want to be so different always end up the same :/

  12. If it’s not your cup of tea then don’t listen to it. I love it’s simplicity and the fact that it’s not so much the norm-in perspective and style.

    There’s a lot of hating going on on the previous posts. I think apologies are in order.

    I like the message and agree with it. From my perspective, the chorus is not a “I’m right, they’re wrong”, it’s simply a contrast of two points. One being the ‘norm’ (which is not the person singing) and the other being the singer saying to the effect ‘what they are saying…I am not really a part of that” but “what you are saying, God, I like that”.

    As far as it being a worship song…there are no worship songs. Songs don’t worship. People worship. You worship with your heart, mind, body and soul. It’s not the songs responsibility to make you worship. If you’re relying on that song then you may be close to idol worship so be careful.

    It was my guess the very first time that I heard this song that Career Christians will not like this song. The CD came in the mail yesterday. My wife, not a career christian, does not like it. I love it.

    Chris Webb

  13. If you want to split hairs over terms like “worship song” or “worship music” you might want to start with the CD itself. Here’s how it’s being billed on their website:

    But whether listeners are familiar with the book or not, they will find a deep and worshipful journey on this collection.

    If a song can’t be described as “worship” in and of itself, a collection of songs can’t be described as a “worshipful journey.” Let’s not get too crazy mincing words.

    Point being, the purpose of these songs is to bring listeners into a spirit/place/setting/experience/whatever of worship.

    That being said, I just couldn’t get down with the chorus, it just feels very divisive and self-righteous. That’s how it hits me.

    I love McLaren. I love the music of Waterdeep and the Worship Circle folks. I just don’t like this song at all.

  14. Hey Shane,
    This song is totally consistent with his “Everything Must Change Book.” There is a reason why our spirit is bothered by the words of this song. Any one who believes in a Jesus of grace and mercy but also believes HE is returning and actually has the right as a Holy Creator to destroy and condem in McLaren’s eyes is a” true jihadist Jesus” believer and he does not believe like them as the song says. page 144 of his book. page 296 for a sum up . Shane actually Brian Mclaren is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He is calling people to action by asking them to follow a false Jesus, a different Good News, and a different Kingdom.( of God) Remember the wolf is in sheeps clothing. Please youth, stand up and speak to the churches letting him in and help others discern when they miss the major problem of his jesus, gospel, and kingdom. Be the light of the world, serve Jesus for solical/political justice, but speak out against those who change the real Jesus, for those who need Jesus right now more then food and fairness.Jesus love the individual and then the individual loves his creation.ps. the thomas think was on shane and the song and music timing in general on bm song sucks.

    ps:

  15. ok, that ps line should have read:The Thomas thing was good Shane!( I checked your other stuff out)and in general Brian’s song and the music to it ,,, a is really bad.

  16. Tammy, I appreciate you stopping by and contributing. I also appreciate your kind words regarding my video titled “He Showed Him the Scars.”.

    However, I must tell you that I strongly disagree with your interpretation of McLaren’s message concerning the Kingdom. There are aspects with McLaren’s teaching that don’t resonate with me as strongly as others, but to go so far as to label him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is, in my opinion, out of line.

  17. Shane, maybe you will drop me a note privately by email. But as you think my interpretation is wrong I ask have you read “everything must change” yet?page 144 quote: ” The phrase “the Second Coming of Christ” never actually appears in the Bible.”…..” This eschatological understanding of a violent second coming leads us to believe ( as we’re said before) that in the end, even God finds it impossible to fix the world apart from violence and coercion:…”….” The gentle Jesus of the first coming becomes a kind of trick Jesus, a fake-me-out Messiah, to be replaced by the true jihadist Jesus of a violent second coming.” ” This is why I believe that many of our current eschatologies,intoxicated by dubious interpretations of John’s Apocalypse, are not only ignorant and wrong, but dangerous and immoral.”… yes those of us who believe in a returning Jesus are not atheist to a Jihad Jesus,as the song says. we are the problem according to Mclaren. And as the song says, “I can’t believe what they believe….but I believe in you.” Problem is Brian Mclaren has created his own “you” the he has decided is morally appropriate.

  18. I am reading it currently, and have read the majority of his other books.

    Like I said, some things he has to say don’t resonate as well with me as others. I don’t align with all of his views, but much of what he has to offer speaks to how I’ve always viewed Christ’s teachings and the role of the church in bringing about his kingdom on Earth.

    Again, let me restate. I disagree with your interpretation of McLaren’s teaching on the kingdom. It seems apparent from your objections that you are someone who subscribes to the “Left Behind” version of eschatology. I do not.

    But more so, I disagree with your labeling someone with a different view on eschatology as your own as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Here’s a guy who is saying let’s put an end to war, let’s focus our energy on the plight of the poor and oppressed, let’s root out injustice wherever it can be found, in Jesus’ name and for the sake of his kingdom. And you’re calling him an agent of the devil. I can’t go along with that line of thinking.

    Apart from that, I have no interest in getting bogged down in a debate with you over McLaren’s teaching. I won’t be commenting further.

  19. Okay, so on this view you would align yourself with Mclaren, that it is “.. the role of the church in bringing about his kingdom on Earth.” This comment in addition with aligning yourself with Mclaren on this particular view would say to me that besides making this present earth a fair and non violent place you also do not believe in a return of Christ .*I would have assumed different because in your second paragraph you state you “… holds to a more conservative (or reformed) theology..”

    On your restatement , let me again try to clarify: I did not originally even put forth my interpretation of Mclarens teaching “on the Kingdom” but as the above paragraph shows I would have made assumptions in my putting forth of statements.Hence, that’s why the second time I quoted Mclaren in response to you saying I was interpreting him wrong, really leaving you to interpret his position for yourself. I am wondering if you have been meaning to point out you disagree with how I must interpret scripture. What is apparent in my objections is that I would believe Mclaren is sharing his distortion of scripture.( yes, which would assume the opposite, that what I hold is not )I’ll assume the best 🙂 that you were only using ” Left Behind” as a reference point as what you subscribed to me as an eschatological view. If you mean to say I subscribe towards a premillinionist view the answer would be no, but I lean that way. But to Mclarer any view that declares an actual return of Christ is wrong.

    I have not and would not label Mclaren(or anyone else) as a wolf in sheep’s clothing just for a different view with my eschatology. That was wrong, you gave me a false label. However Shane, there is a reason why false prophets are called ferious wolves in sheep’s clothing and it appears you have mad a logical mistake in why someone couldn’t be given that label.
    This would be the point of Mclaren in sheep’s clothing, quoting you: “Here’s a guy who is saying let’s put an end to war, let’s focus our energy on the plight of the poor and oppressed, let’s root out injustice wherever it can be found, in Jesus’ name and for the sake of his kingdom.” Wolves look like sheep, sound like sheep, act like sheep, and claim to be sheep.
    And one of many reasons I would point out Mclaren is a wolf: Acts1:11 says: “Men of Galilee,” they said, ” why do you stand here looking into the sky? The same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” Mclaren says:”..we don’t have a violent “Second Coming” Jesus who finishes what the gentle “First Coming” Jesus failed to do, but we have a poetic description of the way the gentle First Coming Jesus powerfully overcomes through his nonviolent “weakness”, a prince of peace whose word of reconciliation is truly mighter than caesar’s sword.” As Mclaren often represents the ‘conventionalist’ view in a manipulitive negative writing style, in light of his perpective, I must say at this point that because there is a “seconding coming” does not assume that Jesus failed at anything in His “first coming.” Wolves disagree with the conclusions of the shepard of the sheep using sheeply sounding language. A counterfeit is something that appears to be the real thing but is not.

    I had no interest in debating. I mentioned dropping an email so that something as lengthy as this might not get dropped in your comments as I was trying to respect your comment area. Privately , I was actually interested in asking questions. This response is because I felt a responsibility to clarify and comment on your responding comments.

  20. I went to the Brian Mclaren Deep Shift Conference in Oak Park Il on April 5th.

    I am not misunderstanding him. If anyone wants to check this blog line where I comment on the central problem of Brian’s framing story message which is his view of Jesus, the gospel, and the kingdom of God,you can find it at the link supplied. I went to check out the site because it was a promoting lead titled: India, Mclaren and the Dalia Lama. It’s here:http://offthemap.com/2008/03/30/india-mclaren-and-the-dalai-lama/

    The songs off the CD are played at the conference,of course, and it is interesting to note that it was discussed in the question and answer time that one of the reasons for the CD
    was because of the “problems” with not having music that wasn’t part of the dominate framing story. Brian’s suggestion for music in community, besides creating new music, was to use Negro Spirituals, and his example was Swing Low Sweet Chariot because the message in that song could be that it was a coming up out from in the underground railroad.Here’s the words:
    SWING LOW SWEET CHARIOT

    Lead: Swing low, sweet chariot
    Chorus: Coming for to carry me home
    Lead: Swing low, sweet chariot
    Chorus: Coming for to carry me home
    Lead: If you get there before I do
    Chorus: Coming for to carry me home
    Lead: Tell all my friends, I’m coming too
    Chorus: Coming for to carry me home

    I got a chance to ask Brian a question also.

    I prefaced the question that in Generous Orthodoxy he says he holds to the nicene creed. He said yes. As to the return of Jesus in glory to judge the living and the dead as the nicene creed says, Brian said,” I am agnostic.”

    I then commented to him my concern that he is claiming to hold to the Nicene Creed when he doesn’t and then said to Brian that I must then ask, and I did, then when will the resurrection of the dead take place. His response ,” I don’t know.”

    I made mention of Andrew’s blog at the onset of these questions, mentioning that the questions had not really been answered in Andrew’s post of his( Brian’s)conversation with Andrew on related concerns of clarity in Everything Must Change.
    Brian and Andrew’s conversation blogged here:
    http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/03/brian-mclaren-r.html

    The importance of using the Nicene Creed is because Brian and the movement at large have no Statement of Faith as a “framework”. Another words, there is no way of knowing at the onset of picking up one of Brian’s books how he “frames” or what he
    “frames” as essential to Christian faith and his understanding of Scripture.When he accepts a creed however, he is saying that that Creed correctly represents what he believes Scripture to communicate. So christians pick up his book and start reading a “christian book” and just natuarlly assume somethings into the text of his writings. The nicene creed becomes the only thing outside the bible to challenge his interpretation of Scripture, so that the holding to a creed becomes an admission to how he interprets the Scriptures. Since he claims to hold to the Nicene Creed it is beliefs of which he agrees to be held to.

  21. (Tammy’s persistent. 😆 )

    If you were to drive to Rochester, I would treat you a “garbage plate” at Nick Tahou’s – a Rochester staple.

    A garbage plate is simply a big heaping pile of macaroni salad, baked beans, and home fries, topped with a burger, hot dog, Italian sausage or steak, and dressed with spicy mustard, chopped onions and hot sauce. (It ain’t pretty!)

    This heart attack on a plate is rumored to be the only known cure for a hangover.

    It’s also a fitting metaphor for my eschatological positions. But, don’t worry, there’s a big ol’ heap of amill in there.

  22. “God is an Atheist, He can’t believe how some people are so full of it”.
    If you believe:
    1. Making a mental note that Jesus does exit, gets you into Heaven.
    2. Atheists go to Hell.
    3. Christains go to Heaven.
    4. Jesus Acended into Heaven.
    5. Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, and raised the Dead.
    6. Your old body comes to life again after 3 days.
    7. Virgins give birth.
    8. Asking God to forgive you on your death bed grants you forgiveness.
    9. Mary is a Goddess.
    10. The Bible is the word of God and man did not tamper with it.
    11. Jesus died for you.
    12. God can hurl lightning bolts.

    You could be full of it.
    God said Man put his own hand in the bible. It is not the true word of God. Take heed,
    “God has returned”.

  23. In the Spring of 2006 God sent a message. The message is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. The message is this:
    In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die,death.

    What does this mean? It means that Birth is Last and Last is Birth. God also gives an example so that you can understand this better. Example: Mike Douglas died on his birthday. (Note: Mike Douglas and Michael Douglas are two different people.)

  24. Correction: To the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. It means that
    Birth is Last and Birth is First. Sorry for the error. God talks in symbols and opposites
    at times so it takes time to figure out what he is saying. Some of his messages are clearer than
    others, plus they have multiple meanings.

  25. God sees everything, doesn’t he?

    This is one small piece of proof that God talked to me:

    Like I said earlier, the Holy Spirit talked to me, besides his message about First is Last and Last is First, he had something to say about “Who Killed JFK”. Christ tells me that the man who shot JFK is a policeman. He also tells me the name of the shooter, but it is in a jumbled word. The word is “Fritters”. I see the name F. Ritter right off so I think that is the name of the killer. Now God has lots of other messages for me to figure out, so I put “who Killed JFK” on the back burner for over a year. A year or more later , just recently, I have more time to look for F. Ritter. I can’t find a policeman with that name who lived in Dallas, Texas in 1963. So I am searching for information about who killed JFK and there is a picture of a policeman by the name of J D Tippit. Now Tippit kind of looks like Ritter. Now I unjumble the letters of Ritter to get TIRRET. Now TIRRET looks more like TIPPIT. Now I make the R’s stand at attention, I get TIPPET. One problem is that the I and the E are not the same. So I do some research on the family name TIPPIT. Turns out that in the late 1800’s JD Tippit’s grandfather changed their name from Tippett to Tippit. So the next step I change the E to I. So Tippet is now Tippit.
    Now I have FS Tippit and JD Tippit. The first two initials are not the same. Next I go to Wikipedia, there I find; “Some thought that J D stood for “Jefferson Davis” however JD does not stand for anything”. That means his name is just J D. So the initials F S , do not stand for anything. I just have two initials that do not stand for anything. Are you following me?

    Next what does “FRITTERS” mean. If your following my thinking here, God is going to tell you what happened to JD Tippit after he was shot. Fritters is a dough that is deep fried. Bread also means body, like in the last super Christ takes the bread and says this is my body. Look in the dictionary, PIT means HELL. TIP means money paid, gratuity. There are other meanings to. These meanings tell a story.

    JD Tippits body (dough) is placed in the deep fryer (lake of fire). Now I think this clue (Fritters) was ingenius. After all God came up with it. I think he does have a sense of humor too. Kids now have a new game to play. They can play God. Pilsbury dough boy fry’s in the lake of fire. You get HELL! fry baby fry!

    If you think this is just crazy. Remember I am just the messenger. Jesus is the one that had to talk about JFK. So he had a reason for doing that. Only God knows who the killer is. This is proof that Christ talked to me and that is the reason he told me “Who killed JFK”. It is proof. I had forgotten about the case years ago. This is a cold case now, it been 45 years since the shooting.

    I also read the part about giving false prophesy. God says false prophets go to Hell or something like that. I only repeat what God told me. Now what I wrote above is from God. He told me who killed JFK in 2006. The above is not a lie or a joke and I am going to HEAVEN without fear.

    Before I forget. Gods messages usually have more than one meaning. F S could also stand for “Fence Shooter”.

    Who are the co-conspirators? Turns out that there are two policemen named Tippit, and one Tippett working in the Dallas police Department that same year(1963). Back to the clue word Fritters. That is plural, you know about plural. We have two fritters, or two donuts. The co-conspirators name is Gayle M. Tippit.

    Now the Dallas Police Department obviously covered up and framed Oswald. He was the Patsy. They did it cause it is very possible that one of the other police officers rushing to the scene saw Tippet fleeing the scene carrying a rifle. They covered it up because of the embarrassment of one of their own was the man that killed JFK? And the Warren commission must have also figured that out so they stuck with the Dallas Dept. story saying that it was Oswald. It could have been a National embarrassment. Now if you look at the evidence like I did. It is easy to see that the Dallas Police Dept tampered with the evidence over and over again. And they did a very bad job of it too. Corruption!

    Now this is my opinion, not Gods. I think God is behind the creation of the Internet. I could never have been able to figure out a lot of his messages without the use of the Internet. People on the Net have been a big help to me. God talks to other people too, they just don’t know it. God let me know it was him.

    Now I just made solving the case of “Who shot JFK?”, look easy. I also gave you proof here. Did you see it? You ask where’s the proof. The proof is that it is impossible for anyone to repeat what I just did above. I mean try it. And I do that over and over again in all of God’s messages.
    See if you can make up a word that is a fried food (like fritters). Unjumble the letters to reveal the name of the killer (Tippit). Then divide the word Tippit into words that describe what happened. Tip- means that JD Tippit was paid for the job and the presidency was over turned. Pit – means that he went to Hell for what he did. Pit means the worst Hell.

    See if you can prove me wrong. Show me how easy it is to make up a name like “Fritters” that solves the crime. This clue is ingenious. God came up with the name “FRITTERS”. God is a genius, not me. I am only the messenger.

    Then the two remaining letters F. S. stands for Fence Shooter. It’s INGENIUS!

    Then on top of that it just so happens that there are two Tippit’s working in the Dallas Police Department in 1963. Fritters (plural) means we have more than one Fritter going in the deep fryer . The other shooter is Gayle M. Tippit. He goes to Hell too. Now I did some research on Gayle M Tippit. There is very little information on him unlike JD Tippit. In my search I found two Gayle Tippit’s still in Dallas. One died in 1967 and the other is married and still lives in Texas. So the other conspirator could still be alive and has managed to avoid detection.

    This is where it gets intesting. Does Gayle M. Tippit come forward and ask God to forgive him? I think he also has to ask the American people to forgive him for his part in the murder of the president or he gets the worst Hell just like JD did. God told me that waiting until the 11th hour is too late. God is forgiving, but you can’t wait until your on your death bed to ask to be forgiven.

    Now if Gayle M. Tippit wants to save himself from the deep fryer. (This could be a long fry, not a quick dip.) He has to come forward and ask to be forgiven. He still gets death or Hell but it won’t be the worst Hell. Just like the worst death is being crucified. The Dallas Police Department also has to answer to God for their part in the cover-up and the arrest of an innocent man.

    God’s messenger, Mel

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s