Jul 012011
 
p_roland5

Roland John Morris, Sr. July 1, 1945 – June 9, 2004

Roland Morris, Sr., 58, ascended to heaven on Wednesday, June 9th after a four year fight with cancer. Roland, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, was born July 1, 1945, in Cass Lake, MN. Ojibwe was his first language, and he grew up fishing, hunting, and gathering wild rice with family and friends. He also played intramural basketball, worked hard in the woods, spent time in a foster home and various jails, drank, smoked, and played guitar with friends at various bars.

Roland went to college in Kansas and was a draftsman for a short time before becoming an upholsterer. While he struggled with many difficulties in his early years, he was a perfectionist with upholstery and throughout his life performed his craft well.

After a life changing spiritual experience with Jesus in 1988, Roland moved his second family to Ronan, Montana to be near his cousin and Christian evangelist, Frank (Scotty) Butterfly. There, in 1992, Roland and his wife, Elizabeth, created Montana’s first patient transportation service, Mission Valley Medicab. They also helped instigate the Montana Passenger Carriers Association and the charitable organization, Valley Missions, Inc., all without tribal assistance.

Roland taught his children about wild ricing, hunting, fishing, and a little of the Ojibwe language. But the biggest, strongest desire of his heart was that his children, grandchildren, and entire extended family come to the saving knowledge and acceptance of Jesus Christ. Having watched many friends and relatives die physically, spiritually, and emotionally from alcoholism, violence, and suicide, Roland could no longer stand aside and do nothing. He was concerned for the children and felt distress at the attitudes of many adults within his community. He wanted the self-destruction to stop.

Roland’s relationship with Jesus coupled with his conviction that much of the reservation system was harmful led him to some amazing life experiences. Actively opposing much of federal Indian policy, Roland served as President of the Western Montana organization All Citizens Equal, was a board member and Vice-Chairman of the national organization; Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, was the Secretary of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation.

He also ran as a Republican candidate for the Montana House of Representatives in the 1996 and testified before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in April,1998, the Minnesota Attorney General in 2000, and numerous Mont. State committees. With his family, he also had a private meeting with a member of the President’s Domestic Policy Council May, 2002 in Washington DC.

As time progressed, Roland became more convinced of the importance of Jesus in his life. So in 2000 he attended a year of training at the Living Faith Bible College, Canada. Over the last three years, he and/or his family went on mission trips in Canada and Mexico. During a 2003 trip to a children’s home in Juarez, Mexico, he fixed most of their dining hall chairs, taught 6 boys how to upholster, donated materials, and preached a Sunday street service.

Through the years, he has appeared in numerous newspaper articles across the country. The last article he appeared in was on Friday, May 14th, in the Washington Times. Reporter Jennifer Lehner wrote, “the ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] protects the interests of others over [Mr. Morris'] grandchildren,” and “Mr. Morris said that once children are relocated to the reservations, they are subject to the corrupt law of the tribal government. Instead of preserving culture, he said, the tribal leadership uses the ICWA to acquire funds provided through the legislation.” Ms. Lehner quoted Mr. Morris as saying that the law is “supposed to help children, but instead it helps tribal governments.”

Finally, in February, 2004, he and his wife founded the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare. The purpose of this was to encourage preaching, teaching and fostering of the growth of the Christian Faith in all places, encourage accountability of governments to families with Indian heritage, and educate the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues.

Roland praised God to the very end. When his final struggle began, several of his friends and family were praying with him. When those present sang old-time hymns, he raised his hand in the air for as long as he could. When “I Surrender” was sung, he sang the echo. While Pastor Kingery sat next to Roland, holding his hand, Roland looked him straight in the eyes and pointed his other hand up to heaven. When he passed on to greater life, his good friend Marvin Bauer was softly playing Gospel songs for him on his accordion.

Roland is survived by his wife, nine children, twelve grandchildren and a great grandson. Also important to his heart was his “special” son, Jesus Garcia, in Juarez, Mexico. Surviving brothers include Harry Morris and Steven Jones; and sisters include Clara Smith, Bernice Hurd, Sharon Goose, and Christine Jones, as well as numerous nephews and nieces and his great cousin, Scotty Butterfly.

Roland was preceded in death by his parents, Jacob and Susan Jones; siblings Thomas and Wallace Morris, Robert, Martin, Caroline, Frances, Barbara and Alvina Jones, Loretta Smith, and grandson Brandon Kier.

Roland’s loving friend, Jim Ball, crafted a beautiful casket for him as a gift. Funeral services were at the CMA Church in Ronan, MT, on Sunday, June 13, 2004 and the CMA Church in Cass Lake, MN, Tuesday, June 15. Internment was at Prince of Peace Cemetery. He is strongly remembered for his strength, character, and love for the Lord Jesus.

Roland, our husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, cousin, and friend; We Love you and Miss you so very much. You are with God now.

Gi gi wah ba min me na wah

Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
Independent Indian Press
.

 

Apparently, it is now illegal to advertise for a Christian roommate.

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a 31-year-old Michigan woman who posted an advertisement on a bulletin board in her church seeking a Christian roommate.

Someone had seen the ad – in the church – with the words “Christian roommate wanted” and contacted the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

The case was then turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, which filed a housing discrimination charge. According to the ‘Fair Housing’ Center, the ad

“…expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.”

FHCWM Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Todd Starnes of Fox News that “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exemptions to that.”

Haynes said this woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, appears to agree. While noting there are exemptions in law for gender when there is a shared living space, he told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act forbids people from publishing ads stating a preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to sale or rental of a dwelling.

Haynes, who said officials plan on pursuing the matter because “We want to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” asks, “If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?”

Describing the case as “outrageous,” her attorney, working for the Alliance Defense Fund, said this is a blatant violation of her First Amendment right to freely associate and

“Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church — an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity.”

Having already sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless, he went on to say,

“The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion and we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint.”

The ADF is representing this woman free of charge.

After an outcry arose over the apparent injustice of the charges against the woman, Haynes seemed to have backtracked from her earlier statement concerning an illegal preference for a Christian roommate – excluding people of other faiths. Haynes told 24 Hour News 8 the woman has every right to seek and live with a Christian roommate — but advertising for it publicly, even on a church bulletin board, violates federal law.

“She can be a Christian and she can even use that as a criteria for who she wants to rent to. She just can’t state that. Because to state that is a violation of the Fair Housing Act,” she said. “There are certain exceptions that apply. She can actually, in practice, not rent to a non-Christian. But she can’t make the statement. The statement alone is a violation of the act. What she can do in practice she can’t make a statement about.”

Haynes now claims someone in the congregation was offended and filed a complaint.

She also spoke with a little less severity concerning the charges, explaining that the action is administrative, not criminal. The center asks for a response to try and negotiate a settlement. If they can’t, it’s possible that the Michigan Department of Civil Rights would determine if a violation happened and perhaps recommend a hearing.

“I found (the woman and her attorney’s) response very offensive. We’re not punishing her for being Christian at all. If you’re in the business of renting, it’s a business transaction that’s held to a standard under federal, state and local law.”

The state does want the woman to get training in federal law, and reimburse the Fair Housing Center $300 for the time it took them to ‘investigate.’

Here are some of my thoughts about why I find this so upsetting:

This was a private note on a church bulletin board. No financial transaction was involved. We are told about a so-called separation of church and state but this appears to mean the state will not allow any Christian activity associated with any state activities but the state is perfectly willing to intrude and penalize church affairs and activities.

If not directly this certainly indirectly impacts on how, and with whom, we live in our own private homes. The government claims she can choose to live only with a Christian but just can’t say that is what she is doing. But not being able to say or put up a notice probably will severely limit her choices of potential Christian roommates and have a direct and potentially negative impact on her living situation.

If she can choose to live only with a Christian but can’t say that is what she is doing , what impact does this have on her First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association?

The people of this church now have to consider and deal with the fact that they have a secret government informer in their midst. If a Christian in the church was offended by the note there is clear scriptural direction on how to deal with it–go to that person privately, take several others with you, bring it to the church and finally suffer wrong before going to secular authorities. [Matthew 18:14-17 and I Cor. 6:2-8]

This woman is expected to pay the costs of the investigation. I’m sorry but this reminds me of the requirement in Iran that family members pay for the bullet that executed a relative in order to get the body returned for burial. What is the difference between this reimbursement and a civil or criminal fine except that there isn’t a judge, jury or stipulated statute amount. What if the investigative cost was $10,000 instead of $300? Who decided this amount?

She is expected to go and get training in federal law so this doesn’t happen again. This sounds like a simpler, abbreviated form of government reeducation. Where do we know this from?

The government says this is a violation of federal, state and local laws. This is surely because of federal mandates on the state and local governments raising questions about the role of federalism and how it is being perverted by federal grants and their associated mandates.

Maybe this case is so outrageous simply because it raises the question of what can’t the government do if they chose to?

 

Oct 032010
 
Melissa and Darrel

What we mean by the words “equality” and “justice” tells much about our basic understanding of how the world should function. Our country was founded with a focus on equal opportunity. Today the use of the word “equality” often focuses on a concept of equal results. Likewise the word “justice” meant standards of law impartially applied to all. Today the word is often used to imply the need for a “just” result. It is impossible to have both equal opportunity and equal results.

A simple analogy is a foot race. Most foot races are very carefully designed to provide equal opportunity. Runners start at the same time with equal distances to run and equal track conditions. Unequal results are expected. A race designed to provide equal results would have to be designed very differently with a continuously readjusted handicapping procedure including different starting times, distances or track conditions in order to try to achieve equal results i.e. everyone finishing at the same time.

If we as a society move from our original concept of equality and justice to new definitions focusing on results, it will have dramatic implications. Mandating equal results requires much more, and much stronger, government. It also has very predictable and negative affects on individual incentives and achievement.

Neither position should cancel our voluntary desire or Christian duty to help those who are in need of our support.

 
Tea Party DC

.
I have heard that the Obama Administration has recently back-tracked on the plan to label Conservative Christians as “non” Christians….but that doesn’t make what’s already been said go away.  Misconceptions and, well, slander should still be addressed.

So…in the statements below, Mr. Jim Wallis appears to be judgemental, angry, intolerant, and impatient with fellow Christians …and doesn’t appear to even like Americans of light skin tone.  But this is who our President asks to speak into the Spiritual lives of Americans… so he must have a warm heart and ability to love his brothers and sisters in the Lord, even if they disagree with him.

As Christians, would Jim Wallis and David Gushee be willing to sit down and just listen to a few of their conservative Brothers & Sisters in Christ – just sit down, with love, patience, respect and tolerance, and listen, with a heart open to understanding and without trying to correct or instruct?  Just as they would with Wallis’ friend, the Imam in charge of the planned Mosque near Ground Zero?

World News Daily: ‘Christians’ set to attack tea partiers
Author warns of next assault after failed attempt to define group as racist

“With recent attempts to portray tea-party members as racist backfiring, a renewed attack is being launched, warns the author of “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and this one is from progressive Christians who claim the movement lacks Christlike charity.

“Just as the racism accusation from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People proved groundless before it deteriorated into an embarrassing public-relations disaster that encompassed the White House, says Joseph Farah, author of the “Manifesto,” no one should accept the latest salvo as gospel either. Federal welfare programs are “coercively taking money from people and redistributing to other people, which, at the end of the day, is legalized stealing,” Religion News Service recently quoted Farah as saying. “And the Bible is pretty firm on stealing. … When Jesus talks about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, he’s talking to us as individuals. [The Bible doesn't] suggest that government is the institution that he designed to help the poor.”

Progressive Christians with ties to the Obama administration – whose policies of government expansion over private-sector industries gave rise, in part, to the tea-party groups – characterized the movement as unbiblical.

“I think that the general ideology of the tea party is not a Christian one,” said David Gushee, co-founder of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. “This kind of small-government libertarianism, small-taxes, leave-me-alone-to-live-my-life ideology has more in common with Ayn Rand than it does with the Bible.”

In one of his regular columns on the Huffington Post, Gushee wrote,

“I believe that extending health-care access to every American was always the right goal and reflects the moral commitments of the Christian faith.”

Gushee’s biography boasts of being “contacted by candidate Barack Obama and remain(ing) in conversation with the religious-affairs office of the Obama administration.”

The Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of the Washington-based social-justice group Sojourners and a key member of Obama’s faith council, is “even blunter in his assessment of the tea party’s approach to giving,” reports Religion News Service.

“The libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue,” he wrote on his blog, God’s Politics. “Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition.”

How “Christian virtue” and “the common good” jibe with Wallis’ own documented radical associations and stances, including support of violent extremists, oppressive regimes and anti-American sentiment, warrants examination, critics say.

While the Associated Press described him as a “politically progressive evangelical,” Wallis reportedly served as Michigan leader of the Students for a Democratic Society – out of which Bill Ayers’ domestic-terrorist group the Weather Underground sprouted.

Wallis’ magazine Sojourners, reports WND, “actively lobbied for communist regimes that seized power in Latin America in the late 1970s.” His 1976 book “Agenda of Biblical People” called America “the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs.”

Wallis got involved early in the racism offensive against the tea party.

“There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white,” he blogged May 27. “Does that mean every member of the tea party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the tea party ethos, and would there even be a tea party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office?” 

Farah, who wrote a book as far back as 2003 predicting the circumstances that would foster the tea-party movement, advises resisting attempts to narrow its scope to tax reform and fiscal issues. Subtitled “A Vision for an American Rebirth,” Farah’s “The Tea Party Manifesto” argues for following the Framers’ example in defining the movement’s spiritual core.

With “phase two in the coordinate strike against the tea-party movement attempting to co-opt the language of faith,” Farah warns, “realizing its spiritual moorings is essential not only to the success, but the actual survival, of the movement – and the future of America’s liberty.”

.

 

.
History, Continued from Part I:

Fifty days later, at Mount Sinai, God gave His law as the foundation of His covenant. (Exodus chapters 19-24). The early animal sacrifices were always symbolic, and blood was always known to be sacred and necessary for atonement and forgiveness. This was true of all bloody sacrifices from the beginning, but now, with Mosaic Law, it was especially true. Burnt offerings, originally from the primeval and patriarchal age, were now joined by other forms of sacrifice. With the previous burnt offerings, the worshipper had not yet broken the Covenant God was to have with Israel, and the offering was meant to cover the general sin attached to every man. The new “sin offering” expressed that covenant WAS broken through the offense, and the offering was meant to restore relationship with God.

There are several Old Testament words for sin. The primary ones being looked at here are Chataah, Chattath, Chata, and Chet. They all refer to an offense, a sacrifice for sin, or a sin offering. Chata is a deeper word, and can also refer to the offender himself, to a habitual sin, to forfeit, repent, lead astray, condemn, bear the blame, or purify. Also used in Lev. 4:3b is the word “Ashmah,” which means guiltiness, a fault, or the presentation of a sin offering. It is translated as “offend,” “cause of sin,” and “trespass.” “Shagah,” used in Lev. 4:13, means to stray, transgress, be encaptured, and is translated as to “err,” “be ravished,” “sin through ignorance,” and “wander.” “Peri Amartia” from Lev. 4:35, 5:6, and 6:17 of the Septuagint, meant “sin-offering.”

These offerings were not for the sake of man or the state, but for God. (Lev. 4:1-32, 5:1-8). In addition, the law now divided sacrifices into different classes for different purposes and kept them before the eyes of Israel. God demonstrated the importance of the blood at the consecration of the priests, birth of a child, and even high festivals. (Ex. 23:14-18, 29; Lev. 1-4:1-32, 5:1-19, 6:1-37, and 16:33).

After the covenant was read and accepted by the people of Israel, it needed to be established with blood. Several bulls were killed, and their blood was sprinkled on the altar, the book of the covenant, and the people. This event was the first recorded time of blood being sprinkled directly on people, and therefore, intimates greater accountability.

Immediately after this sacrificial rite, the Lord announced that he wanted a sanctuary built and He would dwell among them. (Exodus chapters 25-30.) He gave strict directions for the building of the tabernacle and it was functionally designed for blood sacrifice. God’s blueprint included the necessary furniture designed for the purification of worshippers and the killing of animals, as well as the Most Holy Place, where only the high priest could enter – carrying blood.

Later, the fact that the sanctuary furniture was sprinkled with blood during certain sacrifices reminds the Israelites that the sanctuary was an symbol for the way God inhabits His church and dwells among His people. (Lev. 16:16) It wasn’t the building itself that was unworthy; the sins of the people made the sanctuary unworthy as a dwelling place for God. However, God could continue to dwell there if He beheld the blood of atonement. That the people needed the reconciliation and not the place is evidenced in the fact the ceremonies were for the transgressions of Israel (Lev. 16:16) and made atonement for the people and the priests (Lev. 16:33)

The importance of the Blood is further illustrated through the description of the Day of Atonement. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest brought the Blood of the sin offering, which had been collected in front of the people, into the Most Holy Place, where no one but himself was allowed. This illustrates that the Blood offering was for God alone, and the transaction was to take place between only God and His representative. Lev. 17:11.

ALL Bloody sacrifices were atoning. Number one, blood sacrifice was shocking in its character; satisfaction came only through a victim’s death. But they also pointed out to the worshipper that he had offended God and God was forced to separate from him. God could not sacrifice His holiness for the sake of His love for the worshipper. So while estranged from God for having broken the covenant, the Israelite was very aware that not only did he have ceremonial guilt and was separated from God’s presence, but that death must ensue because the wages of sin is death. The main thought under Mosaic Law was that transgressions violated the order of the universe and had to be punished. No regrets could remove the guilt, so death is the only recourse.

Interestingly, the sins that the Mosaic sacrifices atoned for were not moral sins, such as murder, adultery or idolatry, but offenses against ceremonial law and theocratic purity, including involuntary oversights and sins of ignorance. (Lev. 12:7-8, Num. 6:11). The Law was an external, arbitrary law, and external, arbitrary atonements could cover the resulting offenses to the Law. The Law and its atonement had come into being at the same time, in order to relieve the worshipper, to develop the idea of sin, and awaken consciences to the fact of sin. The same authority that instituted the ceremonial rites could cancel the offenses.

This was not mere penitence. The mediating priest and the laying of his hands on the worshipper’s head indicates that the guilt was transferred vividly. The effect of the sacrifices was remission of the penalty, independent of contrition and remorse. Nor was it renewal of homage. It had nothing to do with a friendly feast, but was intended to transfer the sinner’s guilt on to a victim. It was meant to prevent penalty that had been earned, and to secure remission of sin (Lev. 4:20)

Continued Part III – The Ritual

.

 
Nov18286

.
For reasons only God fully understands, shed blood was a vitally important event throughout the Old Testament. The Blood of Atonement, and its importance are mentioned about one hundred times within the books of Law and the prophets.

What is Atonement? The Hebrew word for atonement, “Kaphar,” means to cover, expiate, condone, placate, or cancel. It has been translated as “appease,” “pardon,” “purge,” “make reconciliation,” “put off,” and of course, “atonement.” Another word for atonement, “Kippur”, means expiation and is translated, simply, “Atonement.”

The primary Old Testament passages that deal with the theology of Atonement include the account of Abel in Genesis 4, the account of Noah in Genesis chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9, Abraham and Isaac in Gen. 22, Israel leaving Egypt, Exodus 12, and Mount Sinai in Exodus chapters 19-30. Leviticus 1-4:1-35 describes the rituals of atonement, and Leviticus 16: 1-33 describes the Great Day of Atonement. Other important passages include Gen. 3:15 and 30:10; Lev. 5:1-19, 6:1-37, 16: 1-34, 17:11, and 23:27-32; 2Ch. 29:24, Isa. 53, and Dan. 9:24-27.

The History:

From the first, animal sacrifices were a shadow of the Great Atonement to come. The connection between the two was very real. The Mosaic books, History, Prophets and Psalms, when discussing blood sacrifice, provide prophetic foreshadowing of the atonement the Messiah would make for us all. Beginning with Genesis 3:15, a passage describing enmity between the woman and the snake, we see the first point where we see prophecy and violence occur together.
Blood sacrifice is a clear and well-understood fact of life in the early chapters of Genesis. There is nothing in ordinary way of thinking that would lead men, back then or now, to believe that sacrifice would somehow please God more than anything else. Yet, the first act of worship recorded in the Bible, the animal sacrifice Abel offered to the Lord in Gen. 4, was said to be acceptable to God, and Able is known as the first “Believer.” This first mention of sacrifice does not give the impression it was a new invention of Abel’s. Shed blood was described in a way that showed it was offered by divine appointment, not just Abel’s will.

Next, the Flood in Genesis chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 was both a clear example of God’s deadly judgement on sin as well as another example of the clear understanding early man had concerning sacrificial rites. At the time of Noah, the difference between clean animals and unclean animals was obviously well understood, as Noah classified them as such. In addition, Noah’s first act after leaving the Ark was to offer a burnt offering to the Lord.

Bloody sacrifices maintained a conviction of man’s guilt and a dependence on God’s forgiving grace. They taught that reconciliation could be obtained in no other way but through God’s divine justice. But they also symbolized God’s mercifulness, in that an animal victim could serve as a substitute. The offending worshipper must die, without possibility of living in fellowship with God, unless a sin offering were offered which removed it. On that ground, the sinner could be restored. From the beginning, as hard as it is for modern man to understand, blood sacrifice was a gracious, God appointed ritual given as a way to reconcile with God.

In Gen. 22, Abraham and Isaac had a divine appointment on Mount Moriah. As much as Abraham grieved the task set before him, he understood that only by killing his son could he be obedient to God. This was not arbitrary. There was a deeper meaning to what was going on than just the task that sat before him. Abraham and Isaac both understood the purpose of sacrifice, as sacrifice had long been a part of their lives, as well as the truth that most men understood at that time: that the only way to be fully consecrated to God was through a death. Blessedly, Isaac’s life was spared and a ram was substituted. By the ram’s blood, Isaac was figuratively raised from the dead.

In chapter 12 of the book of Exodus, Israel prepares to leave Egypt. What was done for one person on Mount Moriah will now be done for a nation. So the nation of Israel, God’s first born, spreads blood from a paschal lamb on its doorposts. Many people die that night, but not God’s redeemed people. God had told them, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” That night, the people of Israel learned that life is possible only with the killing of a substitute lamb and the sprinkling of that substitute’s blood. The Passover night illustrates the importance of the blood to God.

Part II Continues with the History -
.

© 2012 Christ's Internet.com - News & Resource Portal Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha