by John Price
Pastor Mick opened the heavily-attended media conference in the sanctuary of his Arizona church. “Thank you all for coming today, before I take your questions, I’d like to read a document entitled ‘A Joint Statement of Faith and Compliance’.
“We, the following Pastors of over two hundred of America’s largest Christian congregations, hereby assert our Faith and Compliance. Though we believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as it has been for the history of mankind, we don’t think that the issue is worth dividing the church from the people of America who quite clearly favor same sex marriage. The nation’s judiciary has found the right to marry a person of the same gender in our founding documents and we are not in a position to dispute what the Supreme Court has ruled. As a church our primary mission is to spread the gospel. If our churches are closed because we refuse to comply with the government’s demands, then our primary mission will be halted. Though some of our brethren don’t agree, we assert that Romans 13 calls us for us to comply with, to be obedient to and to render unto Caesar, that is, to our government. Thus, we assert our Faith and Compliance and respectfully request our national government to take note of this Statement and we ask for our government’s mercy in keeping open our many churches throughout the land. May God bless America.
“I’ll take your questions.”
It seemed every reporter present, and there were many, had a question to ask. Pastor Mick pointed to a local reporter whom he knew. The reporter asked, “Pastor, there’s a wire story that’s just come across in which several leading evangelical leaders accuse you of….let me get the quote correct. They say that you have quote sold out your core Christian convictions in order to keep your church open unquote. They also say that quote compromising Biblical truth today will lead to widespread martyrdom tomorrow unquote. Any response, Pastor?”
“Well, Jim, obviously I don’t agree. I covered this in our joint statement. If we refuse to marry same sex couples in our evangelical churches our churches will lose their tax exemption and will be closed. Shut down. Terminated. It’s not worth it. God spoke on the subject in the Bible, most of us agree. But, since we want to be able to continue to proclaim the gospel message, we’ll just have to swallow the bitter pill and marry people of the same sex in our churches, in order to continue to preach.”
“Pastor, there’s another story on the wire that quotes the president of America’s largest Christian organization as calling you quote a type of antichrist….a man of the cloth who is willing to kiss the ring of our heathen anti-Christian government….a disgrace to the church of Christ unquote. Fairly strong words, right Pastor? Any response?”
“No. I don’t want to dignify his words….well….actually I will respond. If the only price of staying open as a church is that we marry two men or two women in the sanctuary then that’s a small price to pay for freedom.”
“Pastor, you just used the word freedom. After all this do you still consider the church to be free? Are you free as a pastor to preach what the Bible teaches? Haven’t you lost your freedom by caving in to pressure from the government?”
“I don’t have any comment on those questions. I think we’re done here. Thank you all for coming.”
III.
Americans
Fight Back
and
God’s People
Are
Warned
47
Washington, DC – Israeli Embassy
From the outset of his Presidency the President preferred the adulation from overflowing crowds he received whenever he spoke overseas, with many foreign pundits calling him the future leader of the world. Having received several peace commendations and awards, the only major international prize yet unclaimed was peace in the Middle East. None of his predecessors in the White House had managed to broker a true peace in an area riven by division for millennia. True, President Carter had arranged a peace accord between Israel and Egypt, but only after he signed a written commitment pledging that America would militarily defend Israel were it ever to be attacked. If the President could broker a sweeping Middle East peace agreement his status as future world leader would be greatly enhanced.
To offer himself a break from dealing with domestic violence issues, which he considered somewhat boring as his administration had already written the ultimate outcome, the President turned his hand to squeezing the residents of the Middle East to do his bidding. The participants had been summoned to Washington, DC to be squeezed.
The Prime Minister of Israel was venting in the offices of the Israeli Ambassador to the United States which was located in the Israeli Embassy on International Drive in northwest Washington, DC. The Prime Minister was not pleased and for a very good reason. The Israeli Ambassador had just informed him that the President had cancelled their luncheon appointment at the White House. That’s twice, the Prime Minister thought. He stood me up for dinner in his first term, now he’s purposely snubbing me again in his second term. No, he concluded, he’s not insulting me, he’s going out of his way to offend the nation and the people of Israel. He can do anything to me he thinks he can get away with, but when he shows disrespect to Israel’s elected leader he hurts Israel’s standing in the world, which has taken quite a battering of late.
As his anger increased the Prime Minister slowly recalled the other offenses that he had suffered at the hands of this President in his first four years in office. How could there be such a significant difference between two men who were both elected President of the same country? The Prime Minister had been widely viewed as a favorite of one of the President’s predecessors in office who made friendly visits Israel six times during his time in the White House. But, how could the Prime Minister forget the off the record comments by the current President during a meeting with a European leader? Words spoken when they didn’t know the microphones in the room were hot. The President revealed in his conversation his true disdain for Israel’s Prime Minister, using quite unflattering language.
You would think, the Prime Minister concluded, that this President would be doing back flips after Israel reluctantly caved in during the President’s first term. The President had exerted maximum pressure, diplomatically, financially and militarily on the Prime Minister to get Israel to agree to the general concept of a ‘Two State Solution’. The Prime Minister had himself campaigned for office in Israel as strongly opposed to giving up any of Israel’s land to the Palestinians. In spite of his campaign pledge, under intense US, UN and world pressure, he finally conceded that Israel would eventually agree to divide the land. The Prime Minister was well aware, as he was frequently lectured by his orthodox political opponents, of the verses in the Torah instructing Israel not to give up the land, as well as other verses warning the nations not to divide Israel’s land. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister ultimately gave in. What could he do? America, Israel’s major supporting allied nation in the world, was leading the parade to force Israel to agree to the so-called ‘Two State Solution’.
Everyone involved soon learned that agreeing to the general concept of dividing the land and then signing an agreement that actually did so were two distinctly different matters. Every time the US thought that it had the outline of a land swap plan upon which all parties could agree something always seemed to come up. The Prime Minister was embarrassed at one point when local government leaders in Jerusalem approved the building of 2,000 new housing units in an area that the Palestinians hoped to obtain under the much-discussed, but not yet agreed to, peace agreement implementing the ‘Two State Solution’. The announcement derailed peace treaty discussions for over a year.
Saying that they had run out of patience, the Palestinians pushed the United Nations for full admission as a member State, which would give the newly recognized nation international legal standing to further assail Israel. The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to recognize Palestine and was now preparing to grant it full UN member status.
As the Prime Minister tried to
regain his composure after being again snubbed by the leader of the free world he knew he would have to decide how to respond to the media. He would also need to make his travel plans for leaving DC for Israel before nightfall. But Israel’s Prime Minister was a veteran politician. He sensed that there was more to the President’s cancelling today’s luncheon than at first appeared. With the President’s re-election he was in a good position to force through a new peace agreement between Israel and its neighbors, the most important since Jimmy Carter’s Camp David Peace Accords brokered in 1978. Neither the Congress nor the mainstream media would likely oppose the President’s pressure on Israel to force it to give up part of its land. The White House luncheon had been planned, according to leaks, as a strategy planning session between two allies, America and Israel. The White House Press Office followed the leaks by letting it be known that the President and the Prime Minister were expected at the luncheon to agree to final steps before negotiating sessions which were expected to be convened soon at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia.
Since the American tenderizing process of the Prime Minister was supposed to start at lunch today, he pondered, why was it cancelled? Something’s up, he suspected, and he doubted that it would be favorable for Israel. He was right.
48
Federal Court House
Dallas, Texas
The Honorable Frederick Rodriguez rapped his gavel calling his court into session. Chuck Webster, Jack Madison’s attorney, had moved the Court three months before for transfer of the case outside of Dallas due to adverse local publicity. As Chuck was sitting back down at the conclusion of his argument, Judge Rodriguez immediately denied his motion. Strike two, Chuck thought. Strike one was the denial of bail for Jack Madison. Now the judge had denied his motion to move the trial. Things were not going well. Chuck realized that they needed a break. Something needed to happen to turn things around; otherwise Jack was headed for several years as a guest of the federal prison system.
The first two days of the trial not only offered no breaks, on the contrary the testimony offered by the government was overwhelmingly against Jack. CCC Conservator after Conservator testified from the witness stand, each swearing that they heard Pastor Madison utter hate speech attacking persons who wanted to enter into same sex marriage. Chuck Webster on cross examination attempted to show that the words they heard were from the Holy Bible. The first CCC witness denied that she had heard Pastor Madison ever refer to the Bible. On cross examination Chuck attempted to offer in evidence a video of the sermon. The government attorney jumped to his feet, loudly objecting, but without stating any recognizable legal basis for excluding the offered evidence.
Without asking Chuck to defend his offer the Judge ruled, “Counsel, we’re not here to watch television. These witnesses heard what they heard. Your offer to submit the video in evidence is denied. The government counsel’s objection is granted. Now, move on counsel. This jury wants to get this trial over, I’m fairly sure.”
Chuck knew that the Judge’s ruling denying his offer of evidence, being the best evidence of what was actually said, was in gross error of the federal rules of evidence. But he also knew that no matter how hard he might beat on the table the Judge had already ruled and would not reverse his ruling. Maybe, someday, a federal court of appeals might reverse the ruling, but that was for another day, at another time. His only hope to prove what was actually said was to convince the jury from Jack’s direct testimony, whenever that would finally be, as the government seemed committed to grinding out a verdict by sheer force of multiple witnesses.
Chuck asked in a sidebar with the Judge and counsel that the government be instructed to only call further witnesses who would offer new testimony, evidence that the jury had not already heard. The Judge denied his request, saying, “Counsel, the government has the burden of proof here. If the government thinks it will take ten more or a hundred more, witnesses, that’s their choice. Let’s move on, counsel, shall we?”
After fifteen more repetitive witnesses the government finally rested its case. It was time for Jack Madison to convince twelve Texas residents that he had not violated the McAlister Act prohibiting hate speech or the federal hate crimes statute. During the government’s case the jury heard seven solid days of testimony from men and women, short and tall, wide and thin, black, white and Native American. Because the jury was also diverse in make-up, it finally dawned on Chuck that the underlying purpose of the multiple witnesses was to insure that each juror had at least one, or more, witnesses with whom they could empathize, due to similar gender, race or background.
Jack Madison was dressed in a navy blue suit, white shirt and red striped regimental tie. He stood tall in the witness box with his right hand raised above his head to take the oath. He knew from his arraignment that the Judge wouldn’t like his adding ‘so help me God’ at the end of the oath, but he did it anyway. The Judge snapped his head towards Jack, started to speak, but then decided not to make a point of again correcting the defendant. He was fairly sure that any Christians or even slightly religious potential jurors had been eliminated during the voire dire process, but he wasn’t 100% sure.
After asking questions of Jack to acquaint the jurors with who he was, Chuck moved quickly to the core of the case. “Pastor Madison, you’ve heard many witnesses over the last seven days give their impressions of what you said in your sermon on marriage?”
“Yes, counsel, I did.”
“Pastor, were those impressions of what you said in your sermon accurate?”
“No.”
“How were they wrong?”
“May I suggest that what I said in my sermon is best understood if I tell the jury exactly what I said.”
“May I approach the witness, your honor?”
“Yes….yes….move on.”
Handing a document to his client, Chuck said, “Pastor, I’m handing you what’s been preliminarily marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Can you identify this document, sir?”
“Yes. It’s a print out of the sermon that I gave on the Biblical view of marriage. It’s the sermon that’s brought us to this court room today.”
“Your honor, the Defendant offers Defendant’s Exhibit 1 in evidence.”
“OBJECTION. OBJECTION. The people of the United States object to this….to this….objectionable document. This witness can just tell us what he said….if he can recall….”
Chuck was on his feet, ready to respond. “Your honor, the government knows that this transcript of the words spoken is admissible. Why would they?…He didn’t even state a proper basis for his objec….”
“Counsel, approach the bench.”
The Judge covering his microphone with his hand, whispered to opposing counsel, “Look counsel, I don’t like all this bickering. Why don’t you just ask the witness what he said, counsel? Go from memory, you know….like”
Chuck could just barely contain himself. Every ruling by this Judge had hurt his client, and now he was about to rule that he couldn’t even read to the jury the words for which he was being charged with criminal acts. Chuck would have none of it, saying under his breath, but in a seething tone, “Judge, you know you have to let the Pastor read the sermon he gave. The government’s charged him with crimes for uttering the very words written in this document. So you must….”
“Don’t lecture me, sonny. This is my court and I’ll rule….”
Chuck interrupted, which is not usually a recommended course of action, by hissing, “Your honor, the Pastor is my only witness. If he can’t read his sermon to the jury, I’ll rest our case and tell the jury in closing argument that the only reason they didn’t get hear his exact words upon which he is being tried is because of your ruling, that he can’t get a fair trial in your court.”
“You wouldn’t dare counsel. I’ll find you in contempt so fast that….”
Again interrupting, Chuck shot back, staring into the Judge’s narrowed eyes, “Try it, Judge. See what happens if you cut us off with no te
stimony. Watch what the jury does. Try it…..I want a ruling on my offer of Exhibit 1.”
Chuck turned on his heel and walked back to counsel’s table. He stared at the Judge. The Judge stared back. The shocked government attorney had not yet stepped away from the bench. No one said anything. Time passed. Finally the Judge motioned for the government attorney to get back to counsel’s table and said, in a voice that could just be heard, “Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence. The government’s objection is denied. Counsel ask your next question.”
Chuck moved quickly before the Judge changed his mind, addressing his client, “Pastor, please read to the jurors the words you spoke in your sermon. Read them just as you wrote them and delivered those words at that time. When all those CCC Conservators who testified were in your church”
Pastor Madison looked steadily at the jurors, cleared his throat and started to read.
“Marriage is what brings us together today. Where did the idea of marriage come from? What is marriage? Does marriage have any purpose in this modern age? Is it really a blessed arrangement? Why shouldn’t anyone, or any group of someones, be allowed to marry? Is marriage in danger of extinction? These are all questions, along with others, that we will examine today and in the next three week’s sermons.
“First, where did the idea of marriage come from? Who thought it up? I’m going to read to you a few sentences from a sermon given by a Swedish Pastor named Ake Green. Pay attention to what he said, because he was arrested and convicted by the Swedish judicial system for what he said. As you listen to the beginning of Pastor Green’s sermon, ask yourself if you think his words are hate words. The Swedish government charged and convicted Pastor Green with a hate crime for these words. Here are Pastor Green’s opening few paragraphs: