THE WARNING A Novel of America in the Last Days (The End of America Series Book 2) (22 page)

        
Scott concluded the study by suggesting, “Look, I’ve talked
to each of you, separately, at different times about this whole question of
fleeing. Next week, we’ll all talk
together
about it. If you fled,
where
would
you go? How hard will it be? Do you sell your ‘stuff’, the word the Bible uses
for our possessions? What about ministry opportunities overseas?
Lots of things
to consider. Let’s go to
our prayer groups. God bless us. As Tiny Tim would say,
God bless us, everyone.”

Mountainback
Church

Phoenix,
Arizona

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.

God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(German Pastor martyred
in 1945)

        
Pastor Mick was never so sure of anything in his life. He
knew that he had been chosen by providence to lead America’s churches away from
an excessive, even harmful, reliance on what some said the Bible taught about
marriage. Pastor Mick had been on the phone for several days to other
evangelical pastors whom he knew across the country, lining up their support
for his joint statement. Not everyone he called agreed with him but he was able
to persuade over two hundred pastors to sign on. His main argument was that
same sex marriage was not an important enough issue that the church should give
up its God given commission to preach the gospel just to oppose this practice.
Those who refused to sign on to Pastor Mick’s public statement argued with
Pastor Mick that the Bible is abundantly clear on the issue and that giving up
on this issue would only open the door to even more compromises of God’s Word
in the future.

        
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

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.

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
contemp
t
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
testimony. 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:

           
“
From the
beginning God created humans as man and woman. We begin in Genesis 1:27-28:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said
unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:
and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

           
“Here, God's Word
clearly states that you were created to be Father and Mother - as man and woman
- designed for parenthood. The Lord states that very clearly here….The marriage
institution is also clearly defined in Genesis 2:24, where it says:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

           
“Only man and wife
are referred to here. It is not stated any other way; you can never imply or
interpret it to mean that you can have whatever sexual partner you wish to
have. ….”

           
“What was it that led to these cities (Sodom, mentioned
30 times in the Bible, and Gomorrah) perishing, losing their dignity,
disappearing from the face of the Earth? It was because they lived in
homosexuality. It will be the same on that day when the Son of Man is revealed;
consequently, this is a sign of the times we are facing. As people lived in the
time of Lot, so shall they live before Jesus returns. This is something we
cannot deny in any way. Jesus says that the lifestyle of Sodom shall be active
in the whole Earth before the coming of Jesus. The one who represents this
lifestyle today goes against God's order of creation.”

           
“Are Pastor Ake Green’s words hate words? Or are they
instead words of truth from God’s Word? Due to a high level of international
interest in Pastor’s green’s conviction and sentencing to jail, the Swedish
Supreme Court eventually overturned his conviction, I am happy to say. I am
unhappy to report, however, that in doing so, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled
that his Bible-based message did, in fact, constitute hate speech. The Court
said that a higher European Court might not agree with them, so it threw out
his conviction, even though they ruled that he was properly convicted as a hate
speaker. Think about that for a moment. Pastor Green has been labeled by his
government and his government’s highest Court as a disseminator of hate speech
for those Biblically-based words in his sermon, though they spared him from
serving time in jail.

           
“Could that same thing happen in America? Many of you
know that my father, a resident of Tyler, was charged by the federal government
with various crimes, all arising from his use of words in a speech in the
election campaign that he delivered in Austin to a political meeting. Many of you
may also know that I didn’t agree at the time with my dad’s speech, and what I
then thought was harsh rhetoric to use in describing the President of the
United States. I used, ok, maybe, misused, the verse about rendering unto
Caesar that which is Caesar’s.