Guilty?

A Letter from trial observer Pastor R. Knodel

Fellow Members of the Clergy 
Lynchburg and Surrounding Environs 
The State of Virginia 
March 9, 1998 

 Dear Brethren, 
Tuesday, February 17, 1998 I attended the Lynchburg Circuit Court trial of the Rev. Philip "Flip" Benham. I felt obligated to observe the proceedings on account of Matthew 25: 41- 45. There God explains why he condemns "the goats" to eternal condemnation. Their crime was disinterest in, and lack of ministry toward, believers ("the least of these") in their hour of need. He specifically mentions a failure to visit them in prison. 

I reasoned at the time: "I need to find out whether or not the E. C. Glass protestors of November 10, 1997 were justified; because if they were innocent but sent to jail, and I fail to identify with them, God will hold me accountable (Cf. Matt. 25)." If the Rev. Benham was standing for the Lord, I knew I would have to stand with him in some way. And I didn't want to do that errantly or naively. I had my own good name (before the Lord) to protect and maintain. And so I attended the trial and watched and listened. I wanted to hear the evidence so I could stand before the Lord and make the most informed decision possible. 

 What I learned, and what has transpired subsequently, has greatly distressed me. That is why I am writing this letter. I believe Judge Richard Miller and our community have done the Rev. Benham a grave injustice. I consider it a travesty that he was given a 12/6 month jail sentence. I would like to explain my reasoning to you. If I am wrong, I invite your correction. If I am right, I would beg you to join me in supporting the Rev. Benham however you might. I am especially hopeful that you might at least visit him in jail. To this point — as far as I know — I am the only pastor in Lynchburg to have visited him. 

 As I entered the courtroom that day, I was not especially predisposed to support "Flip." The papers had painted the E. C. Glass protest as one that was mainly anti-abortion. And it appeared that the "Christians" present had been unruly. It seemed an embarrassment to Lynchburg's Christian community. To tell you the truth, I wasn't even sure I liked the fellow's name. I'm presbyterian, and I didn't know a single presbyterian pastor that went by the nickname "Flip." But I quickly learned from the trial that things were not as they appeared in the newspaper. And I have grown to have a real affection for brother Benham, as I have visited him in the Lynchburg City Jail. 

 (1) Testimony at the trial was quite clear: All the policemen who testified, detailed the respect and orderliness of the protest. Whereas I had presumed the Glass environment very tension-filled, I found that video tapes existed showing the police standing around relaxed, observing a very orderly effort at witnessing to students as they arrived at school. Events in no way bordered on the riotous. No endangerment was apparent. No arrests were made. Our newspaper has failed miserably to clearly paint that picture. The impression has been left of high tension, danger and offense. From the trial, the most tension appeared in the reactions of E. C. Glass principal Susan Morrison and Lynchburg Superintendent James McCormick. 

 (2) I found that instead of this being an abortion protest, the E. C. Glass project was part of a national effort at witnessing to High School students (called "God Is Going Back To School"). I found that as part of this program, those bearing testimony were to stay on the sidewalks because they were interpreted by the courts as public property where free speech was permitted. This procedure had been followed at over 2000 schools across America and nowhere else had the procedure resulted in arrest. Until November 10th in Lynchburg, Virginia! I asked myself, after Judge Miller's harsh sentence: Are we especially enlightened here, or tragically in the dark? Do we alone rightly understand the constitution in this matter? 

 (3) Our media, which should be helpful and informative, has not so been. For example, on March 5, 1998, the front page headlines declared, "Benham convicted nine times in Dallas." The article gave the impression that Benham had gotten just what he deserved. The whole country agreed. He'd already been in their jails. But the article failed to mention that those prior arrests had all involved abortion-center protests. It gave the impression that Benham had been arrested for the same thing he did in Lynchburg. But Mr. Benham has never been arrested for witnessing at a high school — until Lynchburg. He has assiduously attempted not to be arrested, by staying on the public sidewalks around the schools. Only in Lynchburg were those sidewalks interpreted as private. (And even then, when Rev. Benham was apprized of this by the police, he moved everyone off those sidewalks in ten minutes! It's part of the public record! The police testified to Benham's congeniality!) 

 (4) Whether Lynchburg likes it or not, the issue of the First Amendment arises here. Is the right to free assembly and free speech a right everywhere in America but on the sidewalks surrounding E. C. Glass High School? The question is absurd on the face of it. Trespass cannot be so restrictively defined as to quell free speech. We may not agree with some who choose to exercise that right. But do we not agree to the right itself? Do we give E. C. Glass and Judge Miller free passage to ignore the First Amendment where it applies? After listening to this trial, I concluded that First Amendment claims were not moot here but very much alive! 

 (5) The only possible grounds for trespass that I heard at the trial involved the allegation that L.U. student John Reyes left the sidewalk and entered the school. But even these allegations were not undisputed. What it came down to was the testimony of the police versus the testimony of a Glass student. The police, who were there to stop illegalities, never saw any Christians leave the sidewalk and go inside the school! The student who so testified, said she saw Reyes witnessing to a teacher inside the building. But when asked who the teacher was, she couldn't identify her! She claimed that she "didn't know all the teachers at school." That left it impossible to call the teacher forward and verify the student's testimony. Reyes himself, broke down on the stand and vehemently denied being inside the school. 

It was also alleged by about five students that their way into school was obstructed by witnessing Christians. But beyond the fact that such obstruction could be very subjective in an offended Glass student's mind, again none of the police could be found to testify that they saw such offences. I asked myself: Were our police especially unobservant and dull, or were a few students overly excitable? In such a case, I tend to believe adult policemen over younger students. These allegations demanded "reasonable doubt," not conviction. 

 Other irregularities appeared. One testifying student repeatedly used the "f" (vulgarity) word in her testimony. Judge Miller never challenged her. But when a defense witness went to testify while chewing gum, Miller verbally indicted him for disrespecting the decorum of the court, and made him dispose of his gum! 

 (6) But that which I find most egregious involves the sentences handed down by Judge Miller. Even if the worst of these petty offences were true, the judge sentenced Rev. Benham to 12/6 months in jail! I grimaced at the thought of what this would have meant to me and my family, when I had small children at home — as Rev. Benham does now! Did this "crime" merit the single-most severe trespassing sentence ever handed down in the history of Lynchburg? I invite refutation: Can this sentence stand the light of day? 

 When I consider the felons, drunk drivers, and people guilty of dangerous assault etc. who never draw such time, I have the greatest sense of outrage. And when I have seen people in our community rejoice at this injustice, and the newspaper cheer the sentences, I shudder. If this were a racial incident, I fear the President would be threatening Lynchburg with federal charges and marshals by now! 

The November 10th demonstration was an extremely peaceful and respectful effort at witnessing in a public place. The injustice of the twelve-month jail sentence cries out like Abel's blood from the ground, after his murder by Cain. (Genesis 4:10) It cries out for justification, and it cries out for brother Benham's release! For the Judge, barring their appeal, to commit the two additional innocent student defendants (John Reyes / Jeffrey Brown) to jail would compound the offense. Other Lynchburg students have had drunken, riotous, disruptive parties. Did they ever receive such sentences??? As a parent, can you imagine this happening to you??? 

 I wrote the judge and warned him that while past kings executed their citizenry for hunting deer, and cut off ears and hands because of perceived offenses, that their mere "might" in no way justified their "right." Historical perspective now indicts such so-called justice as the worst kind of injustice. Judges may rule, but they may also be overruled, and condemned themselves, for using their offices in errant or wicked ways. 

 We shall all stand some day before a higher judge. I fear for those leaders in our community who now cry out for the full extent of the law — for at most — the pettiest of offenses. But I also fear for our community inasmuch as those leaders occupy leadership seats in education, the judiciary, and our media. 

 In the Lamb, 
The Rev. R. E. Knodel, Jr. 

****Local information contact: Mr. John Reyes #832-1038 / Please reproduce& disseminate widely****