Christian soccer player who wrote 'I love Jesus' on Pride armband breaks silence, says his message is clear



English soccer player Marc Guéhi spoke publicly about his decision to write a religious message over a gay-pride armband, saying his message was also one of "inclusivity."

Guéhi, who was born in the Ivory Coast, is a devout Christian who plays for Crystal Palace, a soccer team in England's top-tier Premier League.

Guéhi agreed to wear a rainbow armband, which was issued to team captains in the league by Stonewall, a gay English charity that says it stands for "lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning and ace (LGBTQ+) people everywhere."

However, Guéhi sparked headlines when he chose to write "I love Jesus" on the armband, which is against the English Football Association's rules.

'I think the message was pretty clear, to be honest.'

Although the FA did not punish the player, it issued a warning about the guidelines surrounding armbands.

A few days later, Guéhi spoke to Sky Sports about the controversy and provided an interesting statement.

"I think the message was pretty clear, to be honest," Guehi said, per the Daily Mail. "It was a message of love and truth, as well, and a message of inclusivity, so I think it speaks for itself."

Guidelines state players must "wear an armband, which is simple and conforms to the requirements ... relating to slogans, statements, images, and advertising."

At the same time, uniform rules state "any political or religious message" is forbidden and "disciplinary action may be taken" for any breach of the rules. This does not apply to messages that are inherent with the rainbow armband, it seems.

'Marc did not offend anyone with what he wrote.'

Guéhi was the only player to protest in a sense; however, another captain, Sam Morsy of Ipswich Town, refused to wear the rainbow armband as he is a practicing Muslim. He instead wore the typical black captain's armband without any special markings.

Morsy did not receive a warning from the FA, however, causing Guéhi's father to speak out about the apparent double standard.

"I am saying, did he offend anyone?" John Guéhi said about his son. "I don't think so. I do believe in what the Bible says, Jesus loves everyone, and, in my opinion, Marc did not offend anyone with what he wrote."

"I really don't see what is offensive and what the problem is," he added.

The father called the rainbow armband an imposition of belief in its own right, saying the "LGBT community ... are trying to impose on others what they believe in."

He continued, "At the end of the day, everyone has the right to an opinion. But if that opinion's aim is to offend you, then there is a problem, but if my opinion is just to express what I feel, then I think that is fine, and I don't think what Marc wrote on that armband is offensive."

Aside from the very English remarks on offensive speech, the soccer dad said the focus should be on Morsy, instead.

"People should pay more attention to the person who refused to wear it."

"Marc said 'Yes' and did the right thing by wearing it, but people are having a go at him for what he wrote, he accepted to wear the armband, he was just trying to balance the message."

John Guéhi concluded by saying it is a "problem" that soccer players are being used as spokespeople for different beliefs.

"It is still a Christian country. Therefore, I don't see what is offensive."

While Guéhi has avoided a fine, his Crystal Palace manager has affirmed that his team stands for "integration."

"Everyone now is about integration, no discrimination and Marc as well," Oliver Glasner said.

The manager added that he discussed the issue with the player, saying, "He's no child, he's an adult, he has his opinion, and we respect it."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Survey: Homeschool And Christian School Graduates Far More Likely To Keep Their Faith

Public education is erasing America's future by killing the Christian beliefs that inspire parenthood.

Biblical prophecy and Israel: Are predictions unfolding before our eyes?



Author Joel Rosenberg believes some of the events unfolding around us hold biblical significance, particularly when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.

Rosenberg, an expert on biblical prophecy who now lives in Israel, recently spoke with CBN News about Hamas, the war in Gaza, and how current events might play into what the Bible says about future happenings and the end of days.

“That is the No. 1 question I’m getting asked. … ‘Can you put this [current moment] in a prophetic context?'” Rosenberg said. “I would say, No. 1, we’re definitely in a birth pang, right? Jesus speaks in Matthew 24 that there’s going to be contractions and releases, moments of wars and rumors of wars, and kingdom against kingdom, nation against nation, as well as earthquakes and famines and other disasters.”

He continued, “Those are contractions, and just like when your wife gets close to delivering … the contractions are longer and more painful, and the release moments are shorter.”

Rosenberg said Israelis were living in a time of release on Oct. 6, 2023, as it was safe, prosperous, and secure — the safest it had been in modern history.

“You’d have to go back to the days of Solomon and David when the kingdom was peaceful and secure,” he said, noting that Israel had just come off making four Arab-Israeli peace treaties and normalization treaties via the Abraham Accords. “We were just about to finalize another deal — the biggest peace and normalization deal in Israeli history — and that would be with the Saudi government.”

But all of that peace was obliterated by Hamas’ horrific terror attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event he said was the “longest contraction” modern Israel has faced.

“I would add that, just in context, I believe COVID was a biblical Matthew 24 contraction where … a lot of people died. But the other part was … not only was there this terrible health pandemic, plague, a biblical plague, but even the American government could say in an instant, ‘You can’t go to church. You can’t leave your house. You can’t go see your friends, but the strip clubs could stay open. The casinos could stay open. The bars could stay open, the liquor stores, but not churches. That was a contraction.”

'There’s no question in my mind that we’re seeing the chess pieces on the board align in a manner that’s consistent with the prerequisites of Ezekiel 38-39.'

Another contraction, he said, is Russia’s prolonged war in Ukraine, a chaotic and deadly ongoing event further creating international stability.

Rosenberg cited Amos 9:9 while discussing Israel’s current war after the Hamas invasion. That verse reads (NIV): “For I will give the command, and I will shake the people of Israel among all the nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, and not a pebble will reach the ground.”

He believes Amos 9:9 is a recurring prophecy but that the current war in Israel is another “shaking” that falls under its umbrella.

“I don’t believe Israel’s under judgment. … In other words, God didn’t send this enemy, but God … allowed it,” Rosenberg said. “Why? To shake us, to help us realize that most Israelis either haven’t read, don’t remember, or don’t care about Psalm 23, in which David, our greatest king, told us the Lord is our shepherd.”

He said some Israelis forgot, due to security, the realities inherent in this scripture.

“We forgot as a nation that there are ravenous wolves trying to destroy us,” he said. “It shows what a moment of release of security we felt like we were in. But I think this is a wake-up call.”

As for the Palestinians of Gaza, Rosenberg said he believes they are facing a “biblical judgment,” appealing to Genesis 12:1-3 (NIV) to make his case. Those verses read:

The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Rosenberg said the Abrahamic Covenant makes it clear that God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who do not.

“If you curse Israel every day for 76 years, and you want to … elect a genocidal government, even if later you don’t want that, but what are you going to do now?” he said. “I believe we’re seeing a judgment. Doesn’t mean God doesn’t want to show mercy. Also, we need to pray as Christians. Who else is praying for the Palestinians? We need to be. We need to show compassion. But there’s a judgment going on from 76 years of hatred, hostility, cursing, and now, you know, an attempt at genocide against Israel and the Jewish people.”

Considering the prophetic verses in Bible books like Ezekiel — particularly the Gog and Magog prophecy — Rosenberg broke down his beliefs on what’s happening now and how it might relate.

“In terms of watching where we are going, there’s no question in my mind that we’re seeing the chess pieces on the board align in a manner that’s consistent with the prerequisites of Ezekiel 38-39 happening, the war of Gog and Magog,” Rosenberg said, referring to the Bible chapters that purportedly predict Russia, Iran, and Turkey attempting to invade Israel.

But Rosenberg was also careful in addressing these issues, reminding Christians not to read too closely into what’s happening. He said dynamics can and do quickly shift.

“I just want to caution people who are interested in those prophecies … don’t try to jump to a fast conclusion,” he said. “The data doesn’t support yet a conclusion, but it definitely supports [the premise], ‘Isn’t this interesting?'”

This article originally appeared on CBN's Faithwire.

Does 'Bonhoeffer' promote Christian nationalism? The truth behind the controversy



Angel Studios recently released the new film "Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin." Having taught Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s thought in classes in the past and having read from his "Letters and Papers in Prison" at my sister’s wedding and other public events, I was excited about Bonhoeffer’s entry into theaters. The film’s trailer was extremely well-done, so I did what I could to post it on social media and to encourage people to go.

Then, something happened that surprised me.

When I posted about Bonhoeffer, I could count on two things happening. There would be a comment expressing concern about “Christian nationalism.” And there would be a link shared leading to a letter signed by many members of Bonhoeffer’s family expressing their grave reservations.

I observed this dynamic on more than one occasion, which led me to wonder whether there was some kind of orchestrated opposition to the film and its message. Having seen "Bonhoeffer" and being a scholar of politics and religion, I can comment on the phenomenon from a position of knowledge.

Why the apparent counter-campaign seemingly designed to reduce enthusiasm for the film and perhaps dissuading some portion of the potential audience from seeing it?

I think the answer is quite straightforward and centers on Eric Metaxas.

Metaxas, formerly a "VeggieTales" writer and creator of the "Socrates in the City" series of conversations in New York City, exploded into prominence with the publication of "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" in 2009. The biography unexpectedly became a massive bestseller of the type that even finds its way into airport bookstores. While there was some protest from scholars that the book portrayed Bonhoeffer as something much more like an American evangelical than the German associate of Karl Barth he was, the negative reaction was minimal compared to the generally wholesome presentation of the man to a public that didn’t know him well.

Everything changed when Metaxas became a vocal Donald Trump supporter in his writings and on his radio show.

Bonhoeffer’s resistance to the Nazis makes him a hero of the church.

Many evangelicals (especially elite evangelicals) have struggled with the Trump question over the years. Russell Moore and David French came down inalterably opposed to Trump, while Metaxas endorsed him enthusiastically. Before Trump, all three men would have been part of the same nexus of conservative evangelicals.

For many, Metaxas’ support of Trump has tainted his association with Bonhoeffer. While Metaxas has not been part of the team producing the film about the German theologian, he has promoted it. I would suggest, then, that the effort made to gather up a letter of protest from members of the Bonhoeffer family and to gin up worries that Bonhoeffer has been made out as a symbol of Christian nationalism is really based on anger with Metaxas and the success he made writing about him.

Metaxas, on this view, is unworthy to be associated with Bonhoeffer.

But what about the film, itself, and its portrayal of Bonhoeffer? Is this some nasty job of warping one of the German heroes of resistance to Hitler into a champion of Christian nationalism? Does the photo of Bonhoeffer with a gun on posters translate him into a vigilante?

The answers to both of these questions are no. I would argue that the resistance to the film has been unfair and that it deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.

Who is the Bonhoeffer of the film? He is who we understand Bonhoeffer to have been. He was a German from a prominent family who studied theology, including at New York’s storied Union Theological Seminary, and ultimately became a great champion of the resistance to Hitler’s work in transforming the German church into something alien to orthodox Christianity.

All of this is clear in the film and is portrayed, so as to give Christians a role model. The incredible surrender of the German church to Hitler’s new Aryanized “German Christianity” is a matter of record. It took incredible courage to push in a different direction, but Bonhoeffer did (as did Martin Niemoller, also portrayed in the film).

Is he a Christian nationalist or even feasible in any way as a Christian nationalist? Not if what one means by Christian nationalism is a politically warped gospel. This Bonhoeffer is the one who fights for the church to be true to the transcendent God and not the various immanent ones we conjure up for ourselves.

There is a second point that is notable. Bonhoeffer is a hero because he fought for the church to refuse to bend the knee to Hitler out of a right recognition of Christ as Lord.

But tied in with that is the question of whether Bonhoeffer was involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. Certainly, he did try to infiltrate the government. He served in the Abwehr, a military intelligence unit in Nazi Germany, as a double agent. The film portrays him smuggling Jews into Switzerland but, more importantly, wrestling with the decision to kill Hitler.

This is a key point.

Bonhoeffer’s resistance to the Nazis makes him a hero of the church. His involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler is a more difficult question. It is not easy to make out a case for a Christian to take part in such an operation. There are various threads of Christian thought that can be explored and considered, but that is part of what makes the film worth recommending. The Bonhoeffer of the movie wrestles with the disaster that has befallen his country and its people.

While it is a tremendous challenge to paint the picture of one of the 20th century’s most notable lives and various compromises that must be made, "Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin." succeeds in its task. Those who already know the story will find it alternately encouraging and challenging. Those who don’t will see a moving portrayal of the struggle men and women of conscience faced in the crisis of Nazi Germany.

This Bonhoeffer is not perfect, but he is a role model worthy of emulation. He loves music, people (of all races), and God, and he is willing to give his life for what he believes. The people who fired shots of concern over this film missed the mark.

What does Jordan Peterson understand that pastors are missing?



The American church should be embarrassed that Jordan Peterson ate its lunch. And it's not just Peterson; an armada of other influencers have done the same.

Peterson’s success should be especially galling because his work is frequently about the Bible.

One of Peterson's original claims to fame was a series of lectures he gave on Genesis in which hundreds of thousands of mostly young men watched even though they could be two hours per episode. He just released his own Bible commentary book, "We Who Wrestle with God." Earlier this year, he did a national tour on that theme, selling out theaters around the country. Here in Indianapolis, he sold out a 2,500-seat auditorium with a minimum ticket price of over $100. The audience, in effect, paid to hear him give a sermon on Genesis.

People are willing to pay Jordan Peterson to preach to them.

Strangely, the church doesn’t seem to be all that interested in understanding the Jordan Peterson phenomenon, much less the rest of the men’s influencer archipelago ranging from the healthy (like former Navy SEAL Jocko Willink) to the dubious (like the infamous Andrew Tate). It has continued with legacy strategies that appeal to some but are clearly not as effective as what online influencers are doing.

Some of the appeal of online influencers is understandable. There’s a sort of edgy, transgressive, “bro” vibe. Some of what is being sold here, such as pickup artistry, are things the church should flat-out reject regardless of how big the market for it might be.

But there’s a lot more to it than that.

They come across as being on men’s side. They don’t see men as the problem to be fixed.

Online influencers are willing to provide politically incorrect information too many traditional authorities won’t touch. They’ll note that women initiate the vast majority of divorces — about 70% of them — something you’ll rarely, if ever, hear a pastor mention. They’ll talk about hypergamy, or the fact that women prefer to date and marry up, or at least not down. They also have a curiosity about the world, which is one of the keys to the success of Joe Rogan’s podcast.

They also give a tremendous amount of practical advice that you can use in your life. This obviously includes tips on making women like you but also diet and exercise advice, business advice, and more.

Again, not all of it is accurate, but a lot of it is very useful. I’ve learned a lot from some of these people myself.

Above all, they come across as being on men’s side. They don’t see men as the problem to be fixed. They do more than deliver hectoring “Man up!” lectures.

Instead, while they often challenge men to step up, they are cheerleaders as well. And they treat men’s own hopes, dreams, aspirations, and plans as important — not as things that must be entirely sacrificed or given up in order to serve someone else’s agenda.

While many of these folks are playful, others treat life with more seriousness than many traditional authorities seem to.

Jocko Willink’s idea of “extreme ownership” is a good example. Or the way Jordan Peterson treats scripture as having something vital to say about the human condition. The evangelical magazine Christianity Today, in reviewing his book, said, “Christian readers should learn from Peterson’s boldness, his disposition of awe and docility before the sacred page.”

For those of us who are convinced that Christianity is true, it’s incumbent on us to understand why so many people are turning elsewhere looking for answers in life. And we must find a way to articulate the truth in a way they find more compelling than what’s on offer from online influencers.

When a theologian's damning prediction comes true almost 100 years early



Anti-Christian antagonists love to define Christians by what they think Christianity stands against. But Christians must define themselves by what they stand for.

Now is an especially important time to remember this axiom.

As Americans celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday last week, its geopolitical cousins in Britain crossed the Rubicon and embraced death, legalizing so-called "assisted suicide" in England and Wales. Now, Britons over 18 who have been diagnosed with a "terminal illness" and supposedly have fewer than six months to live can receive approval from two physicians and a judge to self-administer fatal drugs.

Supporters of assisted suicide argue it is a compassionate means of ending suffering. One British lawmaker, Peter Prinsley of the Labour Party, claimed in support of the bill, "We are shortening death, not life, for our patients. This is not life or death; this is death or death."

(Let it not be lost on the reader that this justification serves to lessen the now-deceased's burden on Britain's welfare state and its National Health Service.)

The death culture that celebrates "assisted suicide" has succeeded in Western culture because we have eroded, in the view of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler Jr., "moral absolutes [that] rest on explicitly Christian foundations."

In a world that increasingly prescribes death for the undesirables — the unborn, the sick, the elderly — Christians must hold true to their core value of protecting life.

In this context, the most important moral absolute is that each and every human being is intrinsically valuable because humans are the Imago Dei, created in the image and likeness of God, the author of life.

"A society that honors this foundational truth could not contemplate the subversion of human life and human dignity by assisted suicide. A society that denies this essential truth will eventually rationalize anything, given time and motivation," Mohler observes.

When the moral absolute of the Imago Dei is discarded, no longer does a terminally ill person have value, and no longer do humans limit the power of giving and taking life to God. In such cultures, the state becomes like God, determining whose live is valuable and whose life is worth preserving.

In 2012, theologian Stanley Hauerwas offered a prediction about Christians and the culture of death that turned out to be extremely prescient.

He said:

I say in a hundred years, if Christians are known as a strange group of people who don’t kill their children and don’t kill the elderly, we will have done a great thing. I mean, that may not sound like much, but I think it is the ultimate politic. I mean, if we can just be a disciplined enough community, who through the worship of God has discovered that we are ready to be hospitable to new life and life that is suffering, then, as a matter of fact, that is a political alternative that otherwise the world will not have.

This, of course, is something that Christians have always done.

Christians cared for the widows and the orphans. Christians cared for the sick. Christians cared for the unwanted children. Christians cared for those whom society deemed as burdens. Christians essentially invented the hospital. Christianity accommodates all human life because every life is inherently valuable.

In a world that increasingly prescribes death for the undesirables — the unborn, the sick, the elderly — Christians must hold true to their core value of protecting life. Put simply: Caring for the vulnerable and protecting life is who Christians are; it's core to the Christian identity.

Christianity's institutionalized charity transformed the ancient world, and it can renew ours.

In a culture that celebrates death, Christians must be the strange group of people who stand for life — no matter the cost.

May Christians continue to be — as they have always been — in the words of Hauerwas, "the political alternative" this world otherwise does not have.

Debunking a famous Christian phrase — and why that's good news for your faith



I don’t remember the first time I heard someone say, “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship,” but I do remember I heard it sometime during my high school years. I graduated high school in 2001, and the saying had already made its way to my ears in south Texas. I don’t know how much earlier it had been circulated.

For the longest time, I loved that expression. I remember repeating it to others, and I’m fairly sure it showed up in early sermons that I preached.

“Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship.” It rang true to me because I was aware, even in my teenage years, of how suspicious many people were about organized religion. The expression basically said to people, “God wants a relationship with you through Christ. That’s what Christianity is all about.”

But false dichotomies are a real thing — and that expression is one of them.

I think the expression “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship” is meant to be helpful and not dismissive of anything true. Those who use the expression are probably trying to cut through the negative impressions that some people have about religious practices and duties. They’re trying to show Christianity’s distinctiveness as something based on God’s grace rather than man’s works. And they’re trying to emphasize the good news that God has graciously pursued sinners through a redemptive plan that culminates in his son’s perfect atoning sacrifice. In Christ, we have a relationship with God that is characterized by pardon and life and peace.

But before you believe someone who says Christianity isn’t a religion, what’s the definition of a religion?

Defining terms is key in every discussion. And if someone is framing a “religion” as something that is inherently false and works-based, then Christianity isn’t that. But the definition of a religion is broader, more general.

Following Jesus is not some nebulous and vague notion that people can do no matter what they believe or how they live.

A religion is a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. These beliefs pertain to all manner of things, like whether there is a god and what the meaning of life is and whether anything happens after death.

Christianity is a religion because holy scripture identifies the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of Christians.

If someone says, “Christianity is about a relationship with God,” we should ask follow-up questions. What is this God like? What does a relationship with him entail? How is a relationship with God established? Where did Christianity come from? Why wasn’t this desirable relationship with God something we already had? What should be my response to this relationship?

Once we start asking and answering these questions, we’ve entered the realm of what Christians believe. And beliefs are integral to a religion.

Christianity also has practices. There are things like praying and fasting and giving and singing. There is assembling as God’s people for corporate worship. There is the Great Commission, in which Christ has called for his disciples to make disciples of the nations.

Following Jesus is not some nebulous and vague notion that people can do no matter what they believe or how they live. Christianity is a religion. We aren’t helping people when we distort what Christianity is.

And Christianity is also the good news about God’s merciful rescue of sinners — his unbreakable union with them by grace and through faith and in Christ. Praise God that Christianity has relational news! But God also has a relationship with non-believers — a relationship of enmity. Rebels against God are pursuing a hostile relationship with him. What sinners need is a new and reconciled relationship with God.

Christianity declares the good news of Christ being the way, the truth, and the life for sinners (John 14:6).

Don’t be reluctant to claim and explain that Christianity is a religion and a relationship. Rather than doing away with the term “religion,” we should incorporate the terms “true” and “false.” The Christian message is about true religion, true worship, true life. The man-made and works-based religions of the world are false because there is no other god but the living God who has revealed himself in Christ Jesus.

As we help people understand what it means to trust and follow Jesus, we should want to avoid speaking in a way that over-individualizes discipleship. After all, some people have a spiritual allergy to gathering together, submitting to authority, and living obediently. They like a “me and Jesus” version of Christianity because it costs them nothing, and they can maintain life as they see fit while claiming to be “spiritual but not religious.”

When we say that “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship,” we unwittingly play into the problem of individualization that plagues the lives of many professing Christians.

Does Christianity teach about God’s new relationship with sinners through faith in Christ? Yes. But is Christianity still a religion? Of course. In fact, it is true religion. It is the true worship of and obedience to the living God. And it involves the understanding that Christ has redeemed a people from the nations for his glory. He has laid down his life for his bride, the Church.

When we help people understand what it means to trust and follow Jesus, we need to be sure we’re honoring what scripture teaches about discipleship. We are to follow Jesus with the people of Jesus.

This essay was originally published at Dr. Mitchell Chase's Substack, "Biblical Theology."

Gunman targeted school — wounding 2 kindergartners — because of its church affiliation, authorities believe



Authorities told the New York Times they believe a gunman targeted a northern California school Wednesday — wounding two kindergartners — because of the school's affiliation with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The shooting victims — two boys, ages 5 and 6 — are now in "critical but stable condition," the Butte County Sheriff's Office told KOVR-TV in a Thursday report. The suspect was found dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the sheriff's office added to the station. A California Highway Patrol officer found a handgun next to the suspect, KOVR noted.

A 6th-grade student said she helped her teacher comfort younger students as the gunman was outside the classroom.

The shooting happened around 1 p.m. Wednesday at the Feather River School of Seventh-Day Adventists in Palermo, authorities told the station.

The Times said authorities did not provide more information about why the gunman wanted to target the Seventh-day Adventists, but the paper added that Sheriff Kory Honea said it was believed to be an isolated incident.

While authorities weren't aware of any prior threats the gunman made against the school or other schools connected with the Seventh-day Adventists, the Times said neighboring communities were alerted about the possible motive, and police were dispatched to other schools affiliated with the church.

What else do we know?

The two shooting victims were taken to a Sacramento-area hospital and were in "extremely critical condition," Honea said Wednesday, according to KOVR.

While they were in "critical but stable" condition Thursday, the station said the two students are continuing to received treatment at a local hospital.

The sheriff's office told KOVR the suspect has been positively identified, but his name has not been released. Deputies said they don't believe there is any connection between the suspect and the victims, the station said.

Honea added to KOVR that investigators are looking into a "story" that the suspect called a few days prior to the shooting to schedule a Wednesday appointment at the school with an administrator. The station said reports indicate the suspect showed up trying to enroll a child, but deputies don't believe a child was with him.

After the Wednesday meeting with the administrator, gunshots were heard, Honea told KOVR. A 6th-grade student said she helped her teacher comfort younger students as the gunman was outside the classroom, the station said.

The school serves about 35 students from kindergarten to eighth grade, KOVR said, adding that Honea indicated no security officer was stationed at the school, and that's not part of the school's everyday routine.

Students were taken to the gymnasium until authorities could bring school buses to the scene, the station said, adding that they were taken to the Oroville Church of the Nazarene where they were reunited with their families.

Honea also told KOVR an Uber driver dropped off the suspect at the school, and investigators are interviewing the driver to learn more information about what may have transpired before and during the ride.

More from the station:

The shooting appears to be isolated to the Feather River School of Seventh-Day Adventists, but Honea said he provided other law enforcement agencies in California with information to be vigilant when it comes to Seventh-Day Adventist schools as it appears the school may have been targeted due to its affiliation.

The Times said Elizabeth Lepe Arredondo — a former teacher at the school whose children were also students — described Feather River as a beautiful school “out in the open country" with a strong sense of community and values deeply rooted in the teachings of Seventh-day Adventist Church.

KOVR described Palermo as a town populated by more than 5,000 people and situated just south of Oroville, about 30 miles south of Chico, and 65 miles north of Sacramento.

You can view a video report here about the shooting.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Corporate Music Is Killing Classic Country And Its American Values

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-12-04-at-2.02.04 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-12-04-at-2.02.04%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Large corporations have strayed from the American values of classic country music, but some young artists are keeping the tradition alive.

English soccer star warned by officials for writing 'I love Jesus' over Pride armband



Soccer player Marc Guéhi and his team received an official warning from league officials after he wrote a religious message on his arm band.

Guéhi is the captain for Crystal Palace, a team in England's top division, the Premier League. Each team has one player on the field wear a designated captain's armband, with teams all assigned a rainbow armband to show "support for LGBTQ+ inclusion in sport" last weekend.

However, Guéhi, a devout Christian, decided to write "I love Jesus" on his armband. This prompted a warning from England's Football Association about wearing religious messages on a jersey.

'He's no child, he's an adult, he has his opinion and we respect it.'

According to ESPN, the FA's uniform rules state that "the appearance on, or incorporation in, any item of clothing ... any political or religious message" is forbidden and "disciplinary action may be taken" for any breach of the rules.

The rules also state that "for any offence the player and/or the team will be sanctioned by the competition organizer, national football association or by FIFA."

While Guéhi will avoid a fine, his Crystal Palace manager was quick to reaffirm that his team stands for "integration" not "discrimination."

"Everyone now is about integration, no discrimination and Marc as well," Oliver Glasner said. "We spoke about it. He's no child, he's an adult, he has his opinion, and we respect it."

Specific rules surrounding the armbands also exist, and the guidelines state players must "wear an armband, which is simple and conforms to the requirements ... relating to slogans, statements, images and advertising."

The rainbow armband campaign comes from Stonewall, a gay English charity that says it stands for "lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning and ace (LGBTQ+) people everywhere."

While it is indeed odd that the sexuality-driven campaign is not considered political or religious, Guéhi was not the only player to take a stand during the set of weekend games.

Ipswich Town captain Sam Morsy, a practicing Muslim, refused to wear the rainbow armband and instead wore a typical plain black version.

Ipswich Town's Sam Morsey refused to wear a rainbow armband, while Crystal Palace's Marc Guéhi wrote 'I love Jesus' on his.Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images

Shockingly for Morsy's decision, the FA claimed it was a club matter and did not issue a warning.

Ipswich Town still issued a groveling statement.

"Ipswich Town Football Club is committed to being a fully inclusive club that welcomes everyone."

"At the same time, we respect the decision of our captain Sam Morsy, who has chosen not to wear the rainbow captain's armband due to his religious beliefs," the team continued.

"We will continue to grow an environment where all are valued and respected, both on and off the pitch."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!