The 3 - September 30, 2018

This week's edition of The 3, spotlighting three news stories impacting the Christian community, includes good news out of a Federal agency, which cancelled a contract with a provider of fetal tissue from aborted babies.  Also, administrators at a Christian university had moved to change policy toward same-sex relationships, only to have the school's trustees reverse the decision.  And, a Louisiana law that requiring that abortion doctors adhere to certain standards was upheld by a Federal appeals court.

3 - Department of Health and Human Services end contract with company involved in trafficking of body parts from aborted babies

After hearing from a number of pro-life leaders and organizations, the Department of Health and Human Services has announced that the contract with a company, Advanced Bioscience Resources, to provide the Food and Drug Administration with fetal tissue from aborted babies has been cancelled, according to a press release from Liberty Counsel.

It reports that:

National and state pro-life leaders recently sent a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar urging the government to end the taxpayer-funded use of aborted fetal tissue for research. The letter read, in part: “We were shocked and dismayed at the news report that the FDA has signed a contract to purchase ‘fresh’ aborted fetal organs from ABR, for the purpose of creating humanized mice with human immune systems.

In a statement, HHS said that it "...was not sufficiently assured that the contract included the appropriate protections applicable to fetal tissue research or met all other procurement requirements. As a result, that contract has been terminated, and HHS is now conducting an audit of all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue to ensure conformity with procurement and human fetal tissue research laws and regulations."

2 - Christian college modifies policy to remove language banning same-sex relationships

It was recently announced that a Christian school, Asuza Pacific University, was changing policy in order to allow same-sex relationships, according to Faithwire, which quoted Bill Fiala, associate dean of students at APU: “The change that happened with the code of conduct is still in alignment with our identity as a Christian institution. The language changed, but the spirit didn’t. Our spirit is still a conservative, evangelical perspective on human sexuality.”

The article says that:

The updated policy still requires all students to abstain from sexual behavior, but now no longer “singles out” those in the LGBTQ community, barring them from entering into romantic relationships.

This apparently came about after a campus gay group described in the story as "underground," a group called Haven, with assistance from an LGBTQ advocacy group called Brave Commons, has entered into talks with campus administrators.  The Faithwire story stated:

Those conversations, Fiala said, resulted in the university’s decision to change its rules regarding same-sex couples on campus.

The college’s SGA passed a resolution last year, asking APU administrators to create something more formal — like Haven — for the campus’ LGBTQ community.

But, wait, not so fast now - the Board of Trustees has now stepped in to reinstate the original language.  The student website ZU News reported:

Azusa Pacific University reinstated the original language in their code of conduct, reaffirming their “biblical understanding of the marriage covenant as between one man and one woman.”

Earlier in the 2018-19 school year, the APU administration board removed language from their student code of conduct prohibiting public LGBTQ+ relationships.

The Board of Trustees sent an email on Sept. 28 alerting the community of their decision to restore the code of conduct to its previous state.

“Last week, reports circulated about a change in the undergraduate student standards of conduct,” the email stated. “That action concerning romanticized relationships was never approved by the board and the original wording has been reinstated.”

1 - Federal appeals court rules in favor of Louisiana law mandating that abortion doctors have admitting privileges

A law was passed in 2014 in the state of Louisiana that, according to LifeNews.com, "requires abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges in case patients experience emergency complications." The article notes that, "Soon after it became law, the Louisiana abortion facility Hope Medical Group for Women and the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged it in court."

The website reports that this past week:

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said there is “no evidence” that the law will burden women’s access to abortion, rejecting abortion activists’ claim, according to The Hill.

The article points out that while this law is similar to a Texas bill that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled against two summers ago, "...the Fifth Circuit panel said the Louisiana law is different because it “does not impose a substantial burden on a large fraction of women.”

The 3 - September 23, 2018

This week's edition of The 3, spotlight three recent Christian news stories, includes a ruling in favor of the free speech of pregnancy resource centers in Hawaii, which was issued as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a punitive California law.  And, the violence by radicalized Muslims toward Christians in Nigeria continues.  And, Chinese Christian leaders are pushing back against new regulations that have restricted the religious freedom of Christians there.

3 - Pro-life victory in Hawaii related to recent Supreme Court decision

Not too long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of pregnancy resource centers, who would have been forced to violate their deeply held beliefs and share information about where clients could obtain an abortion.  The implications of the Supreme Court ruling have now reverberated to the state of Hawaii.

Alliance Defending Freedom announced on its website that:

A federal district court struck down a Hawaii law forcing pregnancy centers and pro-life doctors to advertise for the abortion industry Thursday, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming free speech in NIFLA v. Becerra.

“No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates his or her beliefs, especially on deeply divisive subjects like abortion,” said Kevin Theriot, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Center for Life. “In NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court affirmed that we don’t force people to say things they don’t believe. For that reason, the district court was correct to permanently halt Hawaii’s enforcement of Act 200’s compelled speech requirement.”

The state of Hawaii had passed a law, Act 200, that according to the website, "required pro-life pregnancy centers to direct women to a state agency that provides abortion referrals and funding. It would have required pro-life centers to post large signs or provide notice to clients that the state of Hawaii 'has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services,' which include abortion-inducing drugs."  A Calvary Chapel-related pregnancy resource center had challenged the law.

ADF reports that even the Attorney General of the state had "agreed that the compelled speech mandate at the heart of the law was unconstitutional," in light the the NIFLA decision."
2 - Radicals in Nigeria continue to kill Christians

Over the last two months, Fulani radicals in Nigeria have taken the lives of more than 250 Christians in the nation, according to a story on the ChristianHeadlines.com website, which relayed a report from International Christian Concern about the bodies of a nine- and ten-year old which had been "found riddled with bullet holes and machete slashes." ICC stated, "The Nigerian government continues to be complacent in dealing with the problem of the Fulani militants, who have in 2018 killed nearly three times as many people as Boko Haram..."

The article, published on Thursday, September 20, points out that there are challenges that the government is mischaracterizing these attacks:

In August, board chairman of Intersociety Emeka Umeagbalasi, told The Christian Post that the Nigerian government is trying to characterize these murders as conflicts between farmers and herders. But what is really happening, he said, was a calculated attack designed to kill and drive Christians out of Nigeria.

Intersociety reported on Sunday that no fewer than 250 Christians have been killed in the last two months. They obtained this number by combining the statistics and news reports of killings since July.

Michael Brown of The Stream, has been speaking out on the plight of Nigerian Christians, to the extent of having his Twitter account temporarily suspended.  He wrote at The Stream:

Babies are being hacked to death. Children kidnapped. Women raped and savaged. Young and old burned alive. Houses destroyed, livestock plundered. Muslim herdsmen are massacring their Christian neighbors while the Nigerian media misreports and the Nigerian government refuses to act. Some even claim the government is complicit in these attacks.

President Buhari, as the watching, worldwide community, we appeal to you to act decisively and put an end to this horror. Right now, sir, many believe there is blood on your hands. Please show the world that this is not true.

He quoted from a Professor, Gerald McDermott, whom Brown described as "a respected educator and Anglican Church leader:"

The Fulani herdsman, who are Muslims, have lived in peace with their Christian neighbors for decades. Also, they cried out “Allahu akbar [Allah is great]!” as they swooped in upon these villages with death and terror.

The real story, Christians tell me, is that Islamists from other countries (like Niger and possibly Saudi Arabia) have radicalized previously-peaceful Muslim herdsmen. And the government, which is controlled by a Muslim administration, is taking advantage of this to consolidate its hold on this Middle Belt of Nigeria. Right now Jos is majority-Christian. But if the government can use these radicals to drive Christians out, Jos can become a majority-Muslim area.

1 - Chinese Christian leaders release document of solidarity concerning religious freedom

Chinese Christian leaders are pushing back against what they see as an increase in state oppression of Christians.  Faith McDonnell reports at the Institute on Religion and Democracy website:

In the midst of a campaign by the Chinese Communist Government to “Sinicize” religion and demand unswerving loyalty to the Communist Party, Chinese Christian leaders have declared their unswerving loyalty to Jesus Christ.

The article states that as of last Tuesday, the 18th, according to the St. Charles Institute, an advocacy group for persecuted Christians, over 340 leaders had signed the declaration.

McDonnell writes that, "The declaration opens with the Chinese church leaders’ affirmation of the gospel and their accountability before God to share it with the world," and adds:

It goes on to list what churches in China believe, their right to practice freely their religion, their value to and love for their country, and their refusal to compromise with the state. The courageous leaders have all identified themselves both by name and by church, and their concluding statement is a sober one, “For the sake of the gospel, we are prepared to bear all losses—even the loss of our freedom and our lives.”

The St. Charles Institute website states:

Since the official “Regulations on Religious Affairs” came into effect on February 1, 2018, the state has enforced a dramatic tightening of controls over religious matters. The new regulations have emboldened relevant governmental departments in charge of religion, and a fresh wave of attacks on religious gatherings, places of worship, and individuals have since erupted.

The site mentioned the ban on online retailers selling the Bible. A more "Sinicized" Bible is being developed. The site also reports:

Other physical manifestations of the “Sinicizing” order includes forcing churches to sing “Red songs,” or songs sung during the Cultural Revolution, praising the Communist Party of China (CPC), and advocating for support of the CPC. There have also been many churches, including official Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) churches, who have been forced to take down crosses and Christmas trees, and instead, replace them with photos of Xi Jinping or the national flag.

Many house churches, which the government views as “uncontrollable,” have been subjected to harsher treatment.

The 3 - September 16, 2018

This week's edition of The 3, focusing on three stories of relevance impacting the Christian community, includes the story of a minister facing eviction from a senior living facility for his role in leading a Bible study.  Also, a Federal court has ruled that a large cross in a park in Pensacola in unconstitutional, while criticizing the precedent for the decision.  And, a large group of pro-life organizations has rebuked the FDA for purchasing fetal tissue from aborted babies.

3 - Pastor in trouble for hosting Bible study

An 86-year-old semi-retired Lutheran minister living in an a senior living facility in Fredericksburg, VA, is facing being evicted from his home there in a series of events related to a Bible study that he has held at a meeting room there.  According to a story about the plight of the pastor, Ken Hauge, on the Christian Headlines website:

The study was held for several months until July 23, when religious activities were banned in the community room, First Liberty said. Further, on the same day, Hauge received a notice saying his lease would be terminated unless he “stopped leading the Bible study entirely, either in his private apartment or in the Community Room,” according to a letter of complaint from First Liberty to management.

First Liberty asserts, the actions by the apartment complex violate the Fair Housing Act.

The article points out that:

Douglas Erdman, president of Community Realty Co. – which owns the apartment complex – told The Free Lance-Star newspaper that First Liberty did not “accurately portray the situation.”

Hauge and his wife have “at no point ... been denied the right to practice their religion in their apartment, nor have any other of the residents,” Erdman added.

That Free Lance Star article, referring to comments by First Liberty attorney Hiram Sasser, stated:

The manager approved Hauge’s request to use the club room in January, Sasser wrote. But he claimed other tenants attempted to interfere with the Bible studies on several occasions, and the complex released a new policy last month prohibiting religious activities in the club room.

The Evergreens continues to permit nonreligious activities, including birthdays, baby showers and wedding receptions.

2 - Federal circuit court rules against Pensacola cross, laments precedent (again!)

For what appears to be the second time in the past few weeks, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling while decrying court precedent in the case.  One such incident occurred in a case involving an abortion ban that was passed by the Alabama Legislature, in which the judge's upheld a lower court's ruling against the law, but two of the judges expressed dissatisfaction with the precedent by which the ruling should be made.

Now, in the case of a 34-foot cross displayed in a park in Pensacola, according to Baptist Press:

Judges said their hands were tied by the 1983 ruling in the nearly identical case of ACLU v. Rabun County, when the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a cross be removed from Black Rock Mountain State Park in Georgia.

"Given the parallels between the two cases -- and crosses -- we think it clear that Rabun ... controls our analysis and requires that we affirm the district court's decision," the three-judge panel in the current Eleventh Circuit Court wrote in its Sept. 7 decision.

The story goes on to say that:

Two of the three judges in the latest ruling, Charles Ashley Royal and Kevin Newsom, said the precedent itself should be revisited and reversed by the full Eleventh Circuit slate of judges.

"There is no injury, no harm, and no standing to support jurisdiction in this case, but there is an Eleventh Circuit rule that directs us to affirm the district court based on this flawed precedent," Royal wrote in his concurrence. "Rabun County needs to be reversed, and this Court needs to devise a practical standing analysis."

Both Royal and Newsom called the precedent and other legal jurisprudence in the Establishment Clause "a hot mess."

According to the article, attorneys with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty indicate they will file an appeal.

1 - Pro-life leaders call on government to stop buying fetal tissue from aborted babies

In light of recent revelations that the Food and Drug Administration had reached an agreement with a company that had acquired fetal body parts from aborted babies from Planned Parenthood to purchase the organs for research purposes, a consortium of some 45 pro-life organizations have contacted the Department of Health and Human Services to register their dissatisfaction, according to the website of the Susan B. Anthony List website, which posted a portion of the letter sent to the FDA, which stated:

“We were shocked and dismayed at the news report that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has signed a contract to purchase ‘fresh’ aborted fetal organs from Advanced Bioscience Resources, for the purpose of creating humanized mice with human immune systems. We expect far better of our federal agencies – especially under the leadership of a courageous pro-life president – entrusted with the health of American citizens. It is completely unacceptable to discover that the FDA is using federal tax dollars and fomenting demand for human body parts taken from babies who are aborted. …The federal government must find ethical alternatives as soon as possible, and should end all association with those who participate in any trafficking or procurement of aborted baby organs. No taxpayer dollars should continue to go to this gruesome practice.”

The article points out that a Planned Parenthood affiliate, one of four referred by the Justice Department for criminal investigation, had been harvesting organs from aborted babies and selling them to ABR for over 10 years.

Meanwhile, the President of the SBA List weighed in on the selection of Dr. Leana Wen as the new President of Planned Parenthood, replacing Cecile Richards.  In a press release, Marjorie Dannenfelser is quoted as saying, "Planned Parenthood’s selection of a doctor to be their next president is an opportunity to clean up their sorry record,” adding, Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion business with 35 percent of the national abortion market. In 2016, according to their latest annual report, abortions made up 96 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services for resolving a pregnancy while prenatal services, miscarriage care, and adoption referrals together made up less than 4 percent." She stated, "The best thing Dr. Wen could do for Planned Parenthood is to help them live up to their claim of being an authentic women’s health care provider.”

The 3 - September 9, 2018

In this week's edition of The 3, highlighting current stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is a move underway to deprive faith-based adoption agencies of their freedom to make decisions according to their faith beliefs, and a recent example comes from Buffalo, NY.  Also, Christians in Iran are facing stiff challenges to the practice of their faith, and current imprisonments can no doubt cause concern.  And, there is a new statement, drafted by a diverse committee of Christian leaders, attempting to evaluate the concept of "social justice" from a Scriptural perspective.

3 - Faith-based adoption agencies facing opposition

Those who claim to be the purveyors of tolerance display a stunning amount of intolerance for any sort of disagreement.  The agenda does not seem to contain an allowance of differing points of view, but to force others to adopt their perspective.

This has been seen over the past few years in the arena of faith-based adoption agencies: even though, out of religious convictions, they would prefer for other agencies to place adoptive children in homes headed by same-sex couples, that doesn't satisfy those who want to advance the LGBT agenda.

The Daily Signal published a comprehensive article recently detailing some instances where these agencies have been so harassed that they have closed.  One such example is Catholic Charities in Buffalo, New York.  The article states:

The agency can no longer cooperate with the government there because the state will not allow Catholic Charities to operate consistently with its religious mission.

It goes on to say:

Catholic Charities places children in homes with both a father and a mother in accordance with Catholic teaching on marriage and the family.

Unfortunately, the state now considers that belief to be discriminatory against LGBT individuals. New York issued an ultimatum: Abandon your beliefs, or quit your ministry. Catholic Charities is unable to comply with these rules and now must shut down, leaving the state with even fewer agencies to meet the needs of kids.

The Daily Signal article also reports that:

Earlier this year, the city of Philadelphia canceled its contracts with Catholic Social Services due to its religious beliefs about marriage, displacing hundreds of children in the process.

Meanwhile, the ACLU and Lambda Legal are litigating in Michigan and Texas in hopes of making these shutdowns the new normal nationwide.

And, there are other locales:

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C., have already driven out religious providers through similar policies. They did so even though religious agencies are unique assets to the child welfare system, with great track records for overall recruitment and for finding homes for difficult to place children.

Fortunately, some states are fighting back regarding this religious liberty issue.  As Jim Daly of Focus on the Family wrote just prior to Kansas and Oklahoma passing legislation to protect faith-based adoption agencies:

The good news is that seven states (Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia) have passed legislation to protect such agencies’ religious beliefs, despite strong opposition by secular groups, including the ACLU. Other states are introducing similar bills. An important bill has been introduced in Congress – The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act – which requires any government entity at the federal or state level that receives and administers federal dollars specifically targeted for adoption purposes, to respect the beliefs and practices of faith-based agencies.

The Daily Caller reported on the passage of the Kansas and Oklahoma bills in May and had another story on the Federal bill in July, stating:

The House Appropriations Committee adopted a measure that would ensure federal funding for faith-based adoption agencies that object to placing children with same-sex couples.

GOP Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama introduced the measure, which is an amendment to an upcoming funding bill, as a way to curb further discrimination against faith-based adoption agencies.

2 - Iranian Christians face significant prison terms resulting from their faith

Four Iranian Christians have been sentenced to a combined total of 45 years in prison, according to a
CBN News story that states that these Christians were "allegedly conducting 'illegal church activities' and spreading propaganda which reportedly 'threaten national security.'"

Mike Ansari from Heart4Iran is quoted as saying: "These Christians were solely arrested for practicing their Christian faith, including attending Christmas gatherings and organizing house churches..."

The article reports:

In 2014, Pastor Victor Bet-Tamraz was arrested when plain-clothed security forces raided his home during a Christmas party. In 2017, an Iranian Revolutionary Court sentenced him, along with Hadi Asgari, to 10 years in prison for "forming a group composed of more than two people with the purpose of disrupting national security" in relation to their church activities. The same court sentenced Amin Afshar Naderi to five years in prison for allegedly insulting Islam.

In January 2018, Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran sentenced Shamiram Issavi to five years in prison for "membership of a group with the purpose of disrupting national security" and another five years in prison for "gathering and colluding to commit crimes against national security."

Issavi is the wife of Pastor Bet-Tamraz.

And, another Iranian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani, is back in prison.  Another CBN story, from early August, reported:

More than 70,000 people have signed a petition calling for the release of jailed Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice, plain-clothed Iranian authorities raided Nadarkhani's home on July 22 and arrested him in front of his family. Several other church members were also arrested.

He's been reportedly sentenced to ten years in a prison notorious for persecuting Christians. Pastor Nadarkhani was also sentenced to two extra years of "internal exile" for allegedly "promoting Zionist Christianity."

The ACLJ website reports that number is now over 107,000 signatures.

The story provides a reminder that, "Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has been in and out of prison for his faith numerous times. Six years ago, Pastor Nadarkhani was sentenced to death for converting from Islam to Christianity. He was later acquitted." And, it points out that, "In May 2016, the pastor was arrested again along with several other Christians during multiple home raids. They were later freed on bail, according to the ACLJ."

1 - Christian leaders craft statement calling for Biblical approach to justice issues

Thousands have affixed their names to The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, which I believe is a serious attempt to address some areas that have resulted in division in the body of Christ and to provide some Scriptural perspective on matters related to justice.  It has brought some spirited discussion on social media and even yielded a host of fake, even vulgar signatures, which seem to have been cleared up. The introduction states:

Specifically, we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality. The Bible’s teaching on each of these subjects is being challenged under the broad and somewhat nebulous rubric of concern for “social justice.”

On matters concerning race, in section 12, the statement offers this perspective:

We deny that any divisions between people groups (from an unstated attitude of superiority to an overt spirit of resentment) have any legitimate place in the fellowship of the redeemed. We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep, we deny that a person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice.

The section declares that “'Race' is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority."
Section 14 talks about racism, and declares:

WE AFFIRM that racism is a sin rooted in pride and malice which must be condemned and renounced by all who would honor the image of God in all people.

It also says that,

We deny that the Bible can be legitimately used to foster or justify partiality, prejudice, or contempt toward other ethnicities. We deny that the contemporary evangelical movement has any deliberate agenda to elevate one ethnic group and subjugate another. And we emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture.

While much of the discussion seems to have centered on what the statement has to say in the area of race, there are also pointed comments with regard to other matters, such as homosexuality.  Section 10 states:

We reject “gay Christian” as a legitimate biblical category. We further deny that any kind of partnership or union can properly be called marriage other than one man and one woman in lifelong covenant together. We further deny that people should be identified as “sexual minorities”—which serves as a cultural classification rather than one that honors the image-bearing character of human sexuality as created by God.

The group of initial signers includes Voddie Baucham and Darrell Harrison, who are both African-American, as well as John MacArthur and James White, who are Biblical teachers who are white.  Subsequent signers have included Ted Baehr, E.W. Jackson, and Kelly Kullberg.  Over 6,000 signatures have been affixed online to the statement.  It appears that around six dozen church bodies have signed on, as well.

The 3 - September 2, 2018

Another week, another edition of The 3, spotlighting three relevant stories to the Christian community.  One story involved a cheerleader unit that has been in and out of court for some six years over the issue of Scripture on football posters through which the players run before a game.  Also, there was an event at the White House this week involving around a hundred Christian leaders.  And, a sudden turnaround in California, where a bill that could have had a chilling effect on pastors and counselors was withdrawn by the sponsor.

3 - Another round in court goes to the Kountze cheerleaders

I don't know how the high school football team in Kountze, Texas is doing on the field, but the school's cheerleaders are on a winning streak. Just this week, KDFM.com reports that "...the Texas Supreme Court today denied Kountze ISD's petition for a review of a lower court ruling allowing cheerleaders to create Bible verses on run-through football banners, according to information David Starnes, the attorney who represented the cheerleaders, provided to KFDM/Fox 4 News."

The Kountze Independent School District has been filing a series of legal challenges essentially against its own students ever since the Freedom from Religion Foundation contacted officials and said the banners were unconstitutional.  This was in 2012.  The television station's story stated:

The Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont sided with the cheerleaders in a September opinion, then denied the district's request for a rehearing in October.

The Kountze ISD attorneys responded by saying the appeals court opinion, "that the run-through banners are neither government speech nor school sponsored speech, leads to absurd results."

Kountze ISD requested the Texas Supreme Court clarify the opinion, citing conflicts with precedent set by previous rulings in federal court.

Hiram Sasser of First Liberty, one of the attorneys for the cheerleaders, in a quote on the law firm's website, is quoted as saying: "As the football season kicks off across Texas, it’s good to be reminded that these cheerleaders have a right to have religious speech on their run through banners—banners on which the cheerleaders painted messages they chose, with paint they paid for, on paper they purchased. School districts everywhere should learn an important lesson from this failed litigation by the Kountze Independent School District: stop harassing cheerleaders and accept that they are free to have religious speech on their run through banners."

2 - Evangelical leaders dine at White House

There is a significant number of Christians who made the choice in 2016 to vote for Donald Trump for President, believing that he was a better option than his opponent.  He has acted strongly on behalf of pro-life policies, has appointed two traditionalist judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of which stands confirmation hearings beginning this week, and has been a clear defender of religious freedom.

So, it's not surprising that the White House would invite a number of Christian leaders, about 100 in all, for a special dinner recently.  Religion News Service reported on the occasion.  The report stated:

Calling America “a nation of believers,” President Trump said at the event that they had gathered to “celebrate America’s heritage of faith, family and freedom.”

“As you know, in recent years the government tried to undermine religious freedom, but the attacks on communities of faith are over,” the president said. “We’ve ended it. We’ve ended it. Unlike some before us, we are protecting your religious liberty.”

Reports about those in attendance include a the names of number of Faith Radio programmers, including Jim Garlow, David Jeremiah, Greg Laurie, Eric Metaxas, and Tony Perkins.  Franklin Graham was also in attendance.

The President ended his remarks, according to the story, by saying, "The support you’ve given me has been incredible, but I really don’t feel guilty because I have given you a lot back — just about everything I promised, and, as one of our great pastors just said, ‘Actually, you’ve given us much more, sir, than you’ve promised,’ and I think that’s true in many respects.”

Some of the reporting, including this story, has centered on the apparently non-formal remarks that were recorded and sent to the New York Times, in which the President encouraged those in attendance to make sure their constituents voted and made reference to those that would overturn the gains on religious liberty, "quickly and violently."

1 - California bill that would have limited freedom of speech pulled by sponsor

After the California Senate passed a bill, AB 2943, that could have resulted in the banning of counseling for people seeking to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction and the sale of resources in the state to that end, it looked as if a pending vote in the other chamber, the Assembly, would go in a similar direction; after all, the chamber had originally passed the bill and had to vote again because of Senate changes.

However, on the final day the bill could be passed before being sent to the governor, the sponsor, Assemblyman Evan Low, pulled it from consideration.  The Los Angeles Times reported:

But after religious groups assailed the proposal, calling it a threat to their right to practice their faith, Low went on a listening tour to meet with clergy across the state. Low ultimately decided to pull Assembly Bill 2943 before final approval in the Assembly, he said.

“I believe we are on the side of the angels on this issue,” Low said. “Having said that, in order to get it right, why wouldn’t we want to engage in meaningful, thoughtful, transformational relationships and conversations?”

The article goes on to say:

The bill was staunchly opposed by practitioners and adherents of “conversion therapy,” who argued it deprived adults of the choice to pursue such a practice. Others said the measure infringed on religious practices and could even be used to ban the Bible or other printed materials. The bill was amended to clarify that only services, not goods, would be subject to the law.

Still, faith leaders considered the bill’s language to be overly broad, sparking fears that pastors or church counselors could be subject to lawsuits if they ministered to people grappling with their sexuality.

One of those was Azusa Pacific University chaplain, Kevin Mannoia, who was one of those clergy with whom Low met.  Mannoia had written in an op-ed in the Orange County Register this week, “The breadth of the language in AB2943 will limit the ability of California’s pastors to engage fully with the real struggles of their people,” adding, “Mr. Low has said that is genuinely not his intent. I am hopeful that he and the LGBTQ Caucus may still collaborate with churches and institutions to preserve their freedom of ministry while at the same time protecting LGBTQ people from harm.” In the op-ed, he took a swipe at so called, "reparative therapy," calling into question its effectiveness, which is a position that is certainly not universally held by Christian leaders, especially those who work in the area of helping a person experience freedom in Christ.

Jonathan Keller of the California Family Council stated:

“AB 2943 would have tragically limited our ability to offer compassionate support related to sexual orientation and gender identity, and even to preach Jesus’ message of unconditional love and life transformation.”