Sunday, December 30, 2012

Chuck O'Neal's Minister's License is Revoked and Warning to Readers!

Hey folks, we took a trip for a few days and have been chill-axin' a bit after a 10-hour-drive in adverse road conditions yesterday, but this needs to be addressed.  During my time away, I became aware that Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries wrote an article announcing that my former pastor, Chuck O'Neal, had his minister's license revoked.  I'm not sure when this took place, but you can read about it in the link below.  Most of the article is old news to most of my regular readers, the new info is at the bottom of the article.


I would like to share what I know.

A pastor in the group affiliated with BGBC contacted me in early in June.  He became aware of the lawsuit when someone heard about it from the media and asked him about it.  After reading the blog, he then contacted me via the blog e-mail address to find out if Chuck O'Neal had given any notice or indication of dropping the lawsuit.  I told him that as far as I knew, O'Neal had no plans of dropping the lawsuit.  He was was genuinely sorry to hear about the lawsuit and said he was praying for me and all involved.  

Now, some six months later, I found out that Chuck O'Neal's minister's license was in fact revoked.  I do not have any information specifically why O'Neal's license was revoked.  No one has told me any reason and I have not asked.   I have suspicions, but they are just that, suspicions.  I do not believe his license was revoked because of information on my blog or solely based on stories they may have heard from former members.  I do not believe his license was revoked primarily because of the lawsuit.  The powers that be obviously must have some compelling reason(s), to have taken this action, but I simply do not have those reasons and I suspect they would not disclose them to me even if I asked.  

That said, this has been a long and difficult road.  When I wrote my first Google review, it was with the intent to tell our experience so that others could have this information available during their church decision-making process.  We all know the story how Google reviews were removed, I was sued along with 4 others for defamation, we went to court and won.  This should have been the end of the story.  

When we discuss spiritual abuse, we are typically discussing the kind of spiritual abuse that occurs while people are attending their church.  This is a bit odd.  What we have seen (and my readers continue to see) is that this spiritual abuse has continued long after we have left the church, some 4+ years later, even after a lawsuit was initiated in an attempt to silence us and our words (silencing = form of spiritual abuse).  All of this behavior is spiritually abusive.  A pastor is still trying to control what we can and cannot say.

Chuck originally said the story was about slander and defamation.  A big issue that got a lot of attention from Chuck and the media was my phrase about a known sex offender at the church with no known safeguards in place.  This phrase was labeled by the plaintiffs as defamatory and part of the court hearing.  It was listed in the court documents.   Chuck O'Neal and BGBC lost the lawsuit.  Now, after he's had his day in court in the civil court process that he initiated, he has still been complaining on his blog, on business cards being handed out (anti-evangelism business cards, anyone?) in the Beaverton, Oregon area, on magnetic car advertisements with information directing people to his Impostor blog saying that Meaghan and I are women of mass destruction and that Meaghan has reported Chuck and his son, Charlie, as sexual offenders.

I will speak on this issue once and for all regarding Chuck's allegations that Meaghan Varela reported him and his son to DHS for sex abuse.  I have never known Meaghan to be dishonest.  Meaghan told me what she told DHS soon after contacting DHS and I wrote what she told me on my Google review and later on my blog.  I am not one to mince words.  

If I had any inkling that Chuck O'Neal or his son, Charlie O'Neal, were sex abusers, I would have marched my derrière to the DHS office myself and reported him/them so they could investigate.  There is no way in HELL that I would ever have withheld that kind of information from my Google reviews or blog.  Protecting victims of abuse is just too important for me.  For him to accuse us of reporting him/them now, after the court hearing, is ridiculous.  

These are allegations that I believe Chuck has concocted himself.  I believe that his blog, the DHS report,  and the attorney letter filled with discrepancies are solely  diversion tactics to shift the focus onto Meaghan and me, rather than what we know to be true and has been evidenced to the world via the very public lawsuit:  that Chuck O'Neal lost his lawsuit and is acting like a Spiritual Wolf.

You may have noticed after we won the court hearing, I attempted to discontinue the use of the full name of BGBC on this blog.  I changed the blog name to BGBC rather than spelling it out.  BGBC was referenced as "my former church."  I also did the same with Chuck O'Neal's name, "my former pastor."  I am and have been ready to move on.    There have been no new accusations from us.  We have said what needed to be said.  The civil court made its ruling.  The only opinion that matters to me is God's and I believe I have done what God would have wanted:   to shine the light of truth on a very dark situation that was destroying people's spiritual lives.

My original post was going to stop here, but this evening, I was alerted to a new situation that needs to be shared in a more visible way.

A friend alerted me to this comment left at The Wartburg Blog today:

Here was the response I left for Melissa at The Wartburg Blog site:

Wow, Melissa. I guess nothing surprises me anymore. Do you live in Beaverton? One would wonder why he would think someone who most likely doesn’t live anywhere near Beaverton would care about his links. How did he get your e-mail address?
Even though he got his degree in psychology, he won’t be seeking therapy. And since no one goes outside the church for counseling and he thinks he is the only one qualified to counsel, that’s out of the question. Maybe his wife would submit to his counseling.
I notice he doesn’t come to TWW anymore, however, he seems to have time to keep up with comments here (adding one this afternoon):
Notice how he corrects a pastor who called him out. Also notice how he refers to my mentioning of the word “mediation”, but doesn’t say anything beyond that. And he does not say a thing about his recently revoked minister’s license. Wonder why?

After typing that response, I notice "Melissa" posted a comment here on my blog.  I've taken a screen shot of the comment and my response:

Here is Melissa's response to me.  She mentions Huffington post and this is the article Melissa is referring to:  Huffington Post.   

  1. melissaDecember 30, 2012 6:13 PMYes, that's me. I also posted to his website, but of course that's moderated. I hate bullies, and he's the worst of the worst. I originally emailed him after the story hit the Huffington Post. Here's our interchange:

    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Melissa"
    Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 4:30pm
    To: ""

    What an embarrassment you are chuck o'neil. I didn't know about you until you decided to file a lawsuit. I guess that debunks your lawsuit. You have effectively destroyed your reputation with me (and many other complete strangers) by your public filing of action against a member of your church. Perhaps, you should have just ignored the criticism, then people like me would have never known about you! And FTR, pastors who sue church members generally have something to hide. Of course that's complete opinion and should never be construed as chuck truth.
    Have a great mothers day from a very cool mommy,

    Melissa Fletcher, RN,BSN,MSN and a real doctoral candidate (as opposed to the faux version you right wingers prefer)

    Sent from my iPhone


    On May 15, 2012, at 9:59 PM, wrote:

    Things are not always what they first seem to be. Here is the rest of the story.


    There is another side to the story. Beaverton Grace Bible Church wants to present its side of the story
    ****************deleted most of this email because I stopped reading about 4 lines in when my mind started substituting words with "blah blah blah"***********
    We thank you for your prayers.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Melissa"
    Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:06am
    To: ""
    Subject: Re: RE:

    Your Hardly blameless, and your loose use of scripture to prove your position speaks volumes. Sorry "pastor" O'neill, you have no excuse. 

    Sent from my iPhone
  2. melissaDecember 30, 2012 6:14 PMContinued:

    From: ""
    To: Melissa
    Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:01 AM
    Subject: Re: RE:

    Dear Melissa,

    I hope you had a Merry Christmas! No excuses, just the truth of why we attempted to use legal means to defend our families. Just wanted to let you know that we have finally gotten the antidote to our revilers' poison up on the internet at **********.org or you can click on the following links:


    Thank you for your kind email and prayers!
    For Christ and His Church,
    Chuck O'Neal, Pastor BGBC


    Re: RE:
    Hide Details

    Melissa Fletcher


    wow, now your bonified obsessed. I had all but forgotten you completely. Congratulations on taking your misogyny to the next level. I'm giving you some free press, just like you like it. I've posted your blog on my IFB cult survivors page on facebook so everyone can see how far an abuser will go to harass others and defend himself. I'm sure you'll get a few comments on your new blog from our members, so good thing you have the "moderation" option on. You would think that after your first decision to make a buffoon of yourself, getting national press coverage, and then LOSING, you would learn. But oh well! Being smart about handling people speaking against you definitely isn't your strong suit. Free advice for the new year: you did good cleaning up the comments on google. Most people forgot who you were including me. Take down your blog and it will stay that way. The more you fight, the guiltier you look, and right now you are looking pretty guilty. May your 2013 be filled with peace....your not starting strong but I have hope. 

    Melissa Fletcher

    Anyway, I was pretty surprised to see him make the effort to respond to me months and months after our last contact. It actually set off all my triggers. I didn't think I was particularly kind....or even feigned more than bystander interest, but apparently he feels he can prove something. He's sick and he needs help. When I looked up his website today and saw he is bragging that he has a blog to defend himself, I thought my my my....the lengths this man will go. He's stereotypical cult leader. Essentially he's destroying himself, and that's always sad to watch, although I can't fake sympathy. The pews of that church serve better empty. There are better places to worship and more loving versions of Christianity out there.

I wholeheartedly agree with Melissa's words above.  I am very disappointed that Chuck has decided to contact people like this and need to issue this disclaimer:  

WARNING to BGBC Survivors Readers:  If you attempt to leave a comment at the Impostor Site or send Chuck O'Neal a personal e-mail, he may keep it on file for months or longer to use as he wishes.  If you do not wish to receive any e-mails from him, please do not contact him via his blog or the church e-mail address.  This is very disturbing behavior.  

photo credit: roswellsgirl via photopin cc


  1. Unbelievable...

    Julie Anne I'd be careful about this...I really would. You're right to exercise caution. This is far from healthy. I noticed on the other blog he was going after anyone who dared questioned him or had an opposing view.

    In these situations it might be best to move on and caution others, which you have done. You'll be in my thoughts!! :-)

    BTW...I sent you an email a while back and I never heard back from you. I read here quite a bit, however there are too many good blogs! I divide most of my time between Wartburg and Internet Monk. Take care!

    1. Thanks, Eagle - I appreciate your thoughts and concern. Go check your e-mail, I found that missing e-mail and just responded. So sorry about that. I normally am quick to respond. Happy New Year, Eagle!

  2. Julie Anne,

    Color me confused.

    Do I understand this correct, that your former pastor was licensed by the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches (FGBC)? While Grace Brethren does share some tenets of reformed theology, they are nowhere near as rooted in Calvinism as, say, John MacArthur or SGM. And, sharing some tenets of Anabaptist theology, they are also non-resistant, not engaging in carnal warfare. Based on your former pastor's actions, he was clearly NOT non-resistant in this matter by suing you.

    So if I might speculate on two possible reasons Mr. O'Neil's license was revoked, it would center on two reasons:

    1. It may be that the lawsuit and other public activities such as his new blog were considered an affront to the theology and praxis of the FGBC. This type of thing happens all the time as viewpoints shift not only with those serving local churches in the ministry, but at the denominational level as well. Which brings me to the next reason.

    2. Pastor O'Neal was as far back as 2006 speaking out about the direction of the FGBC denomination was headed by posting a sermon by a pastor Steve Mitchell on BGBC's sermonaudio page. It is established fact (proven by a denominational split in the 1990's) that there have been tensions over the direction of the denomination.

    Interestingly enough, the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, according to their website, has a church at 980 Northwest 180th Avenue in Beaverton called "Walker Road Grace Brethren Church." Does that address look familiar? It's the same address as BGBC. Hmmm.

    As I said, color me confused.

    1. Matthias: It is clearly apparent that you know far more about the Grace Brethren group than me.

      I can confirm that the name of the church was formerly Walker Road Grace Brethren Church and that the name changed after Chuck arrived. That is also the correct address of BGBC. When we were there, he was definitely distancing himself from the Grace Brethren group, he publicly stated his disdain for their doctrinal beliefs, and I don't ever recall him saying anything positive about that group. In fact, when we were sued, I thought certainly he had severed ties with the group because he was talking about that when we were there in 2008. I was surprised to find out he hadn't.

    2. Hello Julie Anne,

      I spent a spell worshiping at a Grace Brethren church some years back. I also have some ties to the various churches of the Anabaptist movement, of which the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, and most churches that identify themselves as "Brethren" can be considered a part of, at least historically.

      The tenet of non-resistance can be found in Paragraph 8 of the FGBC Covenant and Statement of Faith: "not engaging in carnal strife but showing a Christ like attitude toward all men (Rom. 12:17-21)." The Conservative Grace Brethren Churches, International, add the following clarifying statement at the end of Paragraph 8: "Not engaging in carnal strife is understood to include not only war but also church and personal relationships. This is to reaffirm the biblical teaching on nonresistance (not to be equated with pacifism) in war and peace (Matt. 5:39-41; Luke 6:27-29; Jn. 18:36)."

      Do you know when exactly the name of this church changed and if the name change constituted a change in denominational affiliation? It is curious that there is no "church history" section on the BGBC site. It is even more curious that the the FGBC still lists this church on their website years(!?) after the name change. Finally, it is also curious that a licensing body would allow a minister to maintain their license while working, presumably, outside of their denomination. These things do happen, but usually for a time and a season (i.e., interim pastor) but not permanently except under the most special of circumstances.

      Note that I say "curious", not necessarily "wrong". Obviously, I'm not privy to the inward workings of the FGBC - but something tells me that there is more to this that we don't know, because too much of this simply doesn't make any sense to me given my background and understanding of how these things work elsewhere.

    3. Matthias: Fascinating Information you shared in the 2nd paragraph. Thank you. I had no idea of the Grace Brethren background.

      My understanding (and if any former BGBC readers want to pipe in and send me an e-mail if I have something not quite right, please do!!!) is that the name change occurred after O'Neal arrived. I might be able to find the date. The entire time we were there, we were aware of tension between O'Neal and the district pastors and there was an apparent distancing in relationship going on - (on O'Neal's part - he seemed to be annoyed with those particular pastors). Whenever he mentioned going to the district meetings, it was while mentioning that he hoped to correct those pastors (remember, I have reported in this blog that he always presumed an air of superiority over most pastors, except maybe John MacArthur).

      According to Ken Silva's report, evidently Dr. Greg Howell confirmed with Ken Silva that O'Neal lost his license. While we were at BGBC, O'Neal finally obtained the final credits to complete his bachelor's degree (in psychology, no less, and he publicly blasts anything having to do with psychology). So, there you go, you have a pastor who was pastoring for 10 years without having a bachelor's degree trying to correct someone of Dr. Howell's stature. I really knew nothing about the district pastors and now after looking them up in the past year, I see they have very well-established churches, have served for decades and have solid credentials. I imagine these district pastors would be well-respected among the vast majority of their peers.

      There is certainly more to this story that I do not know (or will probably ever know). We were only there for two years. I did have confirmation that fees were paid so they could have use of the Grace Brethren camp facilities in WA. But I also heard that O'Neal no longer went to district meetings in the last couple years.

    4. Julie Anne,

      I guess I just fail to see what your former pastor would even want to be licensed by a denomination whom he did not agree with. Sure, it's expedient. After giving it some thought, that's about the nicest thing I can say about it.

      I came across this link to the Association of Grace Brethren Ministers ( Note that obtaining a ministerial license in the FGBC does not automatically make one a member of the Association of Grace Brethren Ministers - that is a separate process requiring the payment of dues. That said, there is a Ministerial Ethics Document under the "Member Docs" tab that you should find quite interesting - it would be worth your time to read it.

      Apropos to the current discussion is the following statement to be found under "In the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches":

      "I will not use my influence to alienate my congregation from the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches. If my convictions change, become controversial or detrimental to the ministry of the Fellowship, I will resign my position in the local church."

      If I understand what you have written correctly, this is PRECISELY what your former pastor did. He came into your former church, and alienated them from the denomination. Needless to say, he didn't step down, though based on the ethics of this document, that is precisely what should have happened.

      The more I learn, the more I really just don't understand your former pastor.

    5. I'm sure the Grace Brethren license meant very little to him, he acted as if he was above them and clearly was not in agreement with all of the Grace Brethren ways.

      You may have in fact found a key piece of information, Matthias. Very interesting, indeed. Also, if they disassociated with this group, there would be no camp to go to in the summer. A lot of families would not be happy about that. It's a church tradition - probably going further than O'Neal's time there.

      You have found great information, Matthias. Thanks for sharing this.

    6. Matthias - Chuck answers some of your questions at the church blog:

      The blog link is on the left sidebar.

  3. Julie Anne,

    You wrote: "These are allegations that I believe Chuck has concocted himself."

    Let me say that I have tried very, very diligently since first becoming aware of the lawsuit to see both sides of the story. It's not easy!

    There are 2 things that stand out to me as very confusing.

    One of them is what you are discussing here. Are you saying that Pastor O'Neal somehow falsified the DHS report?

    The other issue that is very hard to come to terms with is that you write that the young man in your former church accused of molestation was convicted and served time...and his mother seems to say just the opposite. Both of these cannot be true. Should this not be a matter of public interest/safety and therefore the information available? I don't pretend to know the laws regarding this, I'm asking you for your thoughts on this.

    I'm exhausted for both you and your former pastor....I hate that this has gone on for so long and even now seems to be escalating. You and your former pastor are in my prayers daily.

    1. 1) Chuck has not shown us the full report. He shows only snippets of what he wants us to see. I do not believe Meaghan has ever told DHS that Chuck or his son are sex abusers. You didn't mention it, but I will - the attorney note has discrepancy on the date. The listing looks to be Chuck's words. If they were the words of DHS, I'm sure any reputable attorney would have identified them as such, including appropriate reference notes.

      2) The issue regarding the sex offender - - I know it is in the court documents. I believe it is in the mother's court declaration.

    2. Just to further clarify, Julie Anne......are you saying that Pastor O'Neal made up both the DHS allegations and the report that the DHS supposedly issued after talking to his children?

    3. No, I am not. It is my opinion (gotta love opinions, right?) that he is reading what he wants to read on that report.

      Here's a perfect example of how Chuck twists things. On the Todd Rhoades site ( , he says something to the effect that I liken John MacArthur to a Muslim cleric. He has posted this comment at least two places trying to sway people's opinion of me. If people simply searched the word "cleric" on my website, they would come directly to that post. The only John MacArthur reference he could be referring to does not come from me, but in a quote from one of my readers. And in the context of that message by the reader, she is saying that celebrity pastors like John MacArthur, CJ Mahaney, etc, must be careful with the words they use when speaking in public.

      So, in conclusion, if Chuck O'Neal can twist something so badly as I refer above, you better believe he has the capability of reading all kinds of things into reports that are simply not there. And if I were his congregants, I'd be demanding, yes demanding to read that report. After all, it is most likely their tithe $$ that will be paying for the attorney fees. BGBC's name is on that lawsuit in addition to Chuck O'Neal. I still wonder if the entire Church gave their green light for this lawsuit to take place. Maybe half the church that left decided that they didn't give their green light and voted with their feet.

    4. Julie Anne,

      What I do not understand is this: IF nobody accused Pastor O'Neal of abusing his children, why then would there have even been a DHS investigation of him?

      I read the links you gave and I can see that if someone just looked at the headline of the post and did not carefully read the whole thing (where you obviously are NOT accusing any of these pastors of advocating wife beating) it would be possible to come to an erroneous conclusion.

    5. Sad - This has been discussed many times on various blogs, news articles. When someone reports to DHS, it is the responsibility of DHS to take that information and use it as they see fit. Once the report is filed, it is their job to do a thorough investigation to ensure the safety of children. It is not up to us to understand the whys, but to trust the system that is in place by professionals who understand abuse and whole systems of abuse.

      One possible explanation as to why O'Neal family was investigated (purely Julie Anne's speculation):

      If I were a DHS investigator who found out that:

      Chuck told someone (Meaghan) who knew of sex abuse situations with children to NOT report, that he would take care of it, it would make me question: why would he do that? Why would he tell her NOT to report? That would send me red flags if I were a DHS investigator.

      . . . and then come to find out the sex abuser is still living with abused children, some 8 months after the church member told the pastor about it (in court documentation, we know that Chuck had knowledge of sex abuse some 8 months before DHS finally did investigate) . . . More Red Flags

      . . . and if there were other known sexual indiscretions going on in the church that the pastor, who is in a position of authority and responsible to protect others . . . and if he failed to handle those situations properly by reporting - - More Red Flags

      . . . . .it is a very logical conclusion for a DHS worker to say, "why did this pastor not report to proper authorities and want to handle this on his own without having professionals involved?" The logical conclusion could be . . . . . Could this pastor, who refuses to report these incidences on his own, who told his own congregation member to not report, have something to hide? Is there something more we should be investigating?

      It's a no brainer why they investigated O'Neal and his family. He basically asked for it himself by failing to report all of the above incidences appropriately. Mrs. O'Neal's anger should be at her own husband. He failed his job as a pastor to follow normal and reasonable procedures in proper reporting. His children would never have been investigated and endured medical exams if he would have done his job as a pastor and reported to authorities.

      The anger is misdirected to us because he fails to accept his own responsibility in failing to report. It's always someone else's fault. This pastor can do no wrong. Just ask his elder, Dale Weaver - we asked him this question and he found no fault - NOTHING wrong with this pastor in the years he served as elder with Chuck. It's a pretty dangerous place to be when you are at a church with a pastor who is apparently like God, with no sin. When a pastor is elevated to this god-like status, you are in a church with rampant spiritual abuse, there is no other choice but false teaching. Everything is skewed if a pastor can do no wrong, shows no humility, shows no responsibilities for wrongdoing.

      As I have said before, if he lived in OK and failed to report, he could have been arrested for failure to report. Lucky for him, he gets to hide behind a clergy loophole in the Oregon's mandatory reporting laws. And now, instead, he thinks he has the right to accuse us of "criminal" behavior for calling him and his son sex abusers, WHICH WE HAVE NOT DONE!

      DISCLAIMER: I repeat - I do not believe Chuck O'Neal or Charlie O'Neal to be sex offenders.

      Chuck incriminates himself on a daily basis by his words and his actions. And now he is doing it publicly on the internet for all to see. I hope people are taking notes of this behavior.

    6. Sad, read the attorney letter on Churck's website. In it, the attorney claims to have been there and reports that Charlie "volunteered" to be interviewed, that he was not required to be since he was 18. That clearly indicates he was not the subject of the investigation. In that same letter the attorney states that the O'Neals told the investigator that it was Meghan who made the report, not the other way around as Chuck claims. Chuck's own evidence contradicts his claims.

      The question I have to ask is why would Chuck advertise the fact that his son was invetigated when It was never written about it in the blog or anywhere else? All he did was draw attention to his son.

    7. Jackie - You make great observations. Thank you! There really are so many holes in the "story" when someone actually takes the time to look closely.

  4. Julie Anne -

    Thanks for the information. Do you know who ordained Chuck, or licensed him? I have looked at the BGBC church website and see no affiliations at all. I also don't see who leads with him at that church, as in other elders. It seems much like a one-man show.

    1. When we were there, there were two elders. One of those elders left a year or so ago. The other one remains, Dale Weaver. I've seen his comment on the Impostor Blog and pretty sure he signed it as: "Elder Dale Weaver. It essentially works as a one-man show, if you know what I mean.

      As far as licensing, I believe it was the local district group who licensed him and also revoked the license. What I understand is that BGBC is independent as far as hierarchy. The pastors in that area district have no say in authority over him, but because they licensed him, were able to revoke the license.

  5. So this is interesting. I knew his blog would come back to bite him hard. Honestly, though, I never really imagined this would happen. I would guess that he's been on the "hot list" by the head of the denomination for a while now. His use of the lawsuit and the blog is the final straw and he has been cut loose.

    Does this mean that he loses his position at Beaverton Grace? Do the elders there have any authority to keep him on or do they have to abide by the decision of the head of the denomination?

    1. I do not believe that this means he loses his position at BGBC. I'm pretty sure the congregation decides this. I have a copy of the church by-laws. When I get a moment, I will see what I find about that and report back.

  6. Well, well, well. I figured it was just a matter of time...

    I wish I could say I felt sorry for Mr. O'Neal, but I'm with Melissa -- I just can't muster up that kind of sympathy. Not for him. He has brought this on himself, pure and simple. I just hope his children don't suffer for this too much.

    And I know it's a bit early for folks in the States, but...

    Happy New Year, JA! All the best to you and your family in 2013!

    1. Thank you, Serving. Happy New Year to you, too!

  7. Happy New Year Julie, I didn't realize your former pastor lost his license, but I've been following your story and have put your blog on mine as one I follow because I hate what spiritual abuse does to people's faith and their sanity and it hinders those that would come to Christ. God bless you and others that were willing to stand up. To hear about Chuck O' Neal is good news but I will pray for those that may still be in confusion.

  8. Check out Brad’s comment @ Todd Rhoades site. It is the first of a few. Brad identifies the fact that there is a huge problem with ‘the system’--that many at TWW and here have commented on over time.

  9. If his license has been revoked, he may have no right to perform marriages. In some jurisdictions, he would lose the clergy protection from reporting. In some jurisdictions, he would also lose the ability to conduct a funeral.

    The shunner has been shunned by those in similar roles in other congregations, because of his actions being so far outside the reasonable expectations of the behavior of a pastor.

    1. It is my understanding that it would be a fairly easy matter for the church to issue him a license. I knew a church that left an organization and then the church licensed its own ministers. Plus, for just a few bucks, anyone can become a "minister."

    2. Thanks for the information, An Attorney - I appreciate your sharing those details with us.

      As for your first point, it seems like this entire year, we've all been finding out bits and pieces of how different states deal with certain issues differently, such as the post Julie Anne did on mandatory reporting versus limited exemptions, etc.

      So, it's important for us to know that loss of license could mean a loss of legal standing in some things. We need to know about this, because - who knows - issues about licensing may well emerge in forthcoming legal disputes, such as with the Sovereign Grace Ministries.

      But, it seems to me, the revoking by the peers who originally granted one's ministerial license has a lot to do with leadership standing in terms of entrustment and personal reputation. As you note in your second point, this is about peers determining that you are no longer qualified to function in that group.

      In my opinion, to be credible, both ordination and licensing processes should involve examination and oversight by peers. These processes may have been split so that licensing is for legal standing, and ordination for in-church/ministry standing, but if you don't qualify for both, maybe you really shouldn't be doing either one of them.

      I've seen this work well. I was on an ordination council once as the recording secretary. Two gentlemen were being asked questions on faith and practice by a local group of pastors. It was a friendly process, but it was also about whether these candidates met the clear biblical criteria of personal character, ministry skill, and biblical-theological knowledge. They wouldn't have even gotten to the ordination council stage if they weren't already qualified in the areas of mature character, wisdom, and proven ministry abilities. The knowledge part was the final deciding criteria, not the first.

      These were local candidates, working in local churches there. And many of these local pastors collaborated frequently. So they'd eventually be working side by side with both of these candidates who were in the ordination process. And everyone took seriously their responsibility NOT to "lay hands" on an unqualified leader and thereby share in God's judgment.

      So, I understand that licensing is not the same as ordination, but still, I see the fact that Mr. O'Neal's accrediting group revoked his license as being a serious thing in terms of his reputation.

    3. You are so right, Brad. Essentially, if this group of pastors decided that he is no longer fit to have a license, you can be sure that if they did have hierarchal power, he would have been fired. And when you look up these pastors, they are quite reputable, Dr. Howell having been awarded pastor of the year in 2009 by the Association of Grace Brethren (national). This license revoking is very serious. Thank you for your insight, Brad.

  10. there some kind of psychological disorder for someone that is an obsessive controller? Ya know, I remember asking one of my counselor friends one time if she even sees any narcissistic personality disorders and she says it is RARE because they think they don't need psychological help in the first place...they always think it's everyone else that needs help. Honestly, I had a pastor that way for a couple of years. They really thought everyone else was the problem and should get counseling. They also thought that they were some kind of "hero" that bowed down or went down to others levels to help them!!! YIKES!!! There is no humility and thinking about what they can do to change or grow. It's always how others need to improve.

  11. ♥ ♪♫.•*¨ Happy New Year ¨*•.¸♪♫ ♥

  12. Happy New Year everyone!

    Sitting here in Canada, like Brad, An Attorney and Mathhias, I've been digging around trying to understand.

    1) Is Beaverton Grace Bible Fellowship currently in good standing with The Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches?

    As Matthias points out, the current church (Beaverton) is listed under it's former name.

    2)Did the fgbc ordain and licence Chuck O'Neil?

    3) If an ordained minister gets his licence yanked in Oregon by his denomination, does the state get notified?

    4) Does Mr. O'Neil then lose certain privileges afforded him by the state, such officiating at marriages and funerals (as An Attorney pointed out)?

    5) In the province I live in, the licencing body (and often also the ordaining body) would be duty bound to inform the province their colleague was no longer recognized. No more matching and dispatching for him/her.

    I'm confused, and while I know that more will come out in time...I think it would help readers to have a clear understanding of denominational affiliation and procedure.

    Getting credentials yanked doesn't stop an unlicensed minister from seeking credentials elsewhere - including less than reputable organizations, but the loss of licence is a very serious matter.
    If a church decides to keep the unlicensed minister, they are more often than not booted out of the overseeing denomination/fellowship.

    Julie Anne, you said,

    "As far as licensing, I believe it was the local district group who licensed him and also revoked the license."

    Would you explain, local district group?
    Do you mean the below?

    According to the fgbc - "A district may be formed with a minimum of three churches."

    Here is the list of Oregon churches:

    In the fgbc manual of procedure districts are defined as:

    "The geographical regions which nominees are to represent on the Fellowship Council shall include the following recognized Districts:

    Western: Arctic, Hawaii, Mountain Plains, Nor Cal, Pacific-Northwest, and Southern California Arizona.
    Central: Heartland, Iowa Midlands, Northcentral Ohio, Northeastern Ohio, Northwest Ohio, and Tri-States.
    Eastern: Allegheny, Blue Ridge, Chesapeake, Mid Atlantic, Northern Atlantic, Florida, Southern, and Western Pennsylvania."

    If this loss of license is true, I'm concerned for your safety and the safety of others - the ongoing obsession and blaming could escalate toward you and your loved ones. If this yanking of license is true, things took a sharp turn for the worse for Mr. O'Neil. Be safe.

    Bene D

    1. Bene D:

      Happy New Year to you! Boy, we are night owls :)

      I'm afraid I don't know many specifics. I was told his license was revoked. Yes, the district is the Pacific-Northwest.

      I do not know the specific answers to #1.
      Re: #2 - It is my understanding that the local district (PNW) licensed him. Ok, I'm clueless - is ordaining and licensing done at the same time or separately? Someone will have to help me out there.

      I do not know the answers to questions 3-5, but sure would like to know.

      It would be nice to have more of the questions answered. I'll see what I can find out.

    2. Just an FYI: Chuck has posted more of his side of the story if you go to the Beaverton Grace Bible Church website and click on "blog" on the left-hand side of the screen. There are around 8 new posts. Happy reading!


Please refrain from using "Anonymous" as your user ID. Instead, click on Name/URL. In the "name" field, type your pseudonym, ie, Fred Flinstone.

You may leave the URL field blank. Thank you for commenting!

I reserve the right to remove or not publish disruptive and/or rude comments.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.