Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Impostor "True" BGBC Survivors Blog Site Created by Suing Pastor Chuck O'Neal

Just when I thought I had seen it all, there is a new twist in the Beaverton Grace Bible Church (BGBC) saga with Pastor Chuck O'Neal - you remember, the pastor who sued me and 4 others for $500K for defamation.  Ya know, us moms always know when our kids are up to no good when things are too quiet around the house.  Well, things have been a little too quiet around here and the kids have been caught.  The kids aka Pastor Chuck O'Neal and "those with him" have created a blog using the domain name bgbcsurvivors.org.  They are calling themselves True BGBC Survivors.  Who or what have they survived?  Us - the ones they sued.  HAHAHAHAHA  I'm sorry, I can't help myself sometimes and I must find some humor in this somewhere.


How did I find out about this new blog?  This morning, I received an e-mail from a reader mentioning "scripted videos".  I asked for clarification and was told about the comment from Anonymous.   Here are the screenshots: 











Beyond the initial laugh about the idea of a man who calls himself a pastor and church members being afraid of two moms and beginning an impostor blog, the reality is that spiritual abuse still continues.  I've spent a long time on this blog talking about signs of spiritual abuse.  When (if) you go to the impostor site, I think my brilliant readers will be able to spot some clear signs. 

I'm sure you've seen children's coloring books with hidden pictures, right?




I thought it might be a good test of our spiritual abuse detective skills to use that same concept and attempt to "find the wolf" or signs of spiritual abuse on the Impostor Blog.  But wait!!!  Let me give you some clues:   a master manipulator will suck people in emotionally - they do that by providing information that invokes an emotional response.  If you are able to separate yourself from that emotional tug, you will be able to more clearly see behavioral issues abusers use - the same behavioral issues that identify a:




WOLF!!!!!



I need to cut this short.  Tonight I'll be singing at a Christmas performance.  I am praising God that He has revealed His truth to me, that His love never fails,  that God does not bully us around, but his slow to anger and rich in love.  




* * * * Update 12/14/12:  Deb of The Wartburg Watch blog has done an article on this recent BGBC situation here:  (click on title)

Chuck O’Neal’s Church Launches ‘True BGBC Survivors’ Website



photo credit: akahodag via photopin cc

196 comments:

  1. Sadly, he reveals far more than he realizes like a certain naked emperor of storybook fame. I hope they somehow find the Grace that adorns their church name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is my ultimate hope and prayer. Yes, I snark, but my heart aches for those who are hurt or blinded by spiritual abuse.

      Delete
  2. Has Fred Butler checked in on this yet? Maybe he can write a blog post on it over at Wing'n'Thigh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SMG!!!! You are right. I don't know if Fres knows about this survivor blog. Maybe he does because Chuck and Fred did have a connection behind the scenes. I wonder if Fred will share the same disdain for Chuck's blog as he has for other survivor blogs.

      Delete
    2. Yeah. I mean a whiny mom is to be expected. She's a whiny mom, after all, just like most women are whiny moms. But, an upstanding Man of God who declares the Whole Counsel of God (TM) from God's holy ordained pulpit, Lord's Day after Lord's Day, starting a whiny blog, whining about how other people have treated him and his family? I'm sure Mark Driscoll would have some mighty choice words for such a manly man.

      I'm sure Fred is rofl right about now.

      Delete
    3. To clarify my comment above: when I wrote "She's a whiny mom" I was of course referring to Julie Anne. :)

      Delete
    4. Fred Butler and Chuck O'Neal had a connection behind the scenes? I'm not surprised, they're both MacArthurites. Butler is a fundamentalist like MacArthur and O'Neal. Butler goes after those who don't support Israel or who aren't young earth creationists. Butler follows MacArthur lockstep, as MacArthur is a big promoter of young earth creationism and Christian Zionism.

      Delete
    5. Steve - HA - Yes, I'm a whiny mom blogger - what do those guys call me? Discernment Diva? I would really love to know Fred's thoughts on this. He is a staunch defender of pastors, but despises survivor blogs. So what do you call a pastor who starts a survivor blog?

      I don't know that Chuck would care about Driscoll's comments, but it would be interesting to see MacArthur's comments on this. But then again, he didn't seem too concerned when Phil Johnson or Bill Shannon of Grace Community discussed the lawsuit with him. He likes Johnny Mac when Mac sides with him, otherwise, he digs up words from dead people to justify his lawsuit.

      Delete
    6. Nicholas: Yes, I followed hits back to a site where someone posted a link to one of Fred's articles regarding my case and survivor blogs (he's done at least 5 blog posts on survivor blogs. He is staunchly opposed to them. On that site, Fred responded to questions and I noticed he had more information on our case than was public (it had just gone viral). I questioned him about that information a number of times publicly. Finally, he admitted that he had exchanged e-mail(s) with Chuck. I knew that had to be the case. Evidently Chuck e-mailed him privately to thank him for the way he was dealing with me - basically defending Chuck.

      With the exception of my phone call with Phil Johnson, I have found that 3 Grace Community pastors I spoke with would rather defend a pastor than consider that perhaps someone could be spiritually abusing - even after discussing the fact that there was a $500K lawsuit on the table. In their minds, people who complain about pastors are not to be trusted and that sets up a very dangerous situation for those seeking help. Where can people go if they are experiencing spiritual abuse if they are being labeled as the cause of the problems?

      Fred came to my blog to engage one of my readers who had posted a comment on his site and that led to quite a fiasco for a week or so on the blog. We have a bit of history and unfortunately most of it is negative.

      Delete
    7. The lower level MacArthurites you talked to simply did the natural fundamentalist thing, they defended their guy, as did Butler. When MacArthur likely examined the case, he probably decided that there was no way they could defend Chuck O'Neal or his actions and so MacArthur had Phil Johnson make a public statement against O'Neal's lawsuit. That didn't stop Johnson from taking a swipe at you and TWW with his "discernment divas" post at Pyromaniacs. And if it was aimed at anyone else besides, I am unaware of who.

      Like Butler, the MacArthurites at Pyromaniacs have disdain for survivor blogs, such as SGM Survivors.

      Delete
    8. Jilly Ann, you talking about that Dave Johnston fella aren't ya? He gave Mr Butler quite a spanking!

      Delete
    9. HAHA! monax Yup, that be the one!

      Delete
    10. Nicholas - Bill Shannon is not a lower level dude - he's one the of the top GCC leaders. I also talked with Phil Johnson for about an hour. He was very nice to me on the phone and seemed to understand spiritual abuse saying something like, "if what you say is true, then yes, that sounds not right." However, 2 weeks later, I found that he had posted a link about my case on his Facebook page the day after our phone call. In that post, he discussed complaint blogs, it made me think that he may have been trying to appease me during our phone conversation (after all, I am a woman blogger who has a keyboard very close to my fingertips - best not to get a blogger upset, ya know!).

      Delete
    11. Sorry, I didn't know about Bill Shannon. It shows, I think, that GCC was prepared to defend O'Neal until they realized that they couldn't do so without losing credibility.

      We could easily call Pyromaniacs a "complaint blog" because it "complained" about Michael Spencer, N.T. Wright, Mark Driscoll, the emergent church, etc. They're using double standards in criticizing blogs they don't like as "complaint blogs."

      Delete
    12. I think GCC defends pastors, period. They didn't like Chuck suing me, but still felt I was in the wrong. Bill Shannon and a volunteer pastor and also Fred Butler were more concerned about my marriage/family, etc. For them it was: shouldn't you be doing something besides blogging - I was out of line, I shouldn't be questioning elders, we had no business asking questions. I was not doing what they believed a wife/mother should be doing. I was the problem. Even when I told them story after story, it got twisted around back to me.

      The exception to this was my conversation with Phil Johnson conversation - but keep in mind, I spoke with Phil after my story was in the media and after the story was exposed on FBC Jax Watchdog and TWW - - - I think Dee had already spoken with Phil. At that point Phil Johnson from GCC wanted to clear John MacArthur's name in connection with this lawsuit - it really wasn't about helping me deal with my spiritually abusive pastor - it was all about their image because TWW had publicized the story.

      I have been shocked at the character displayed at Pyro blog. They allow very few dissenting comments and berate those who dare. I don't feel the love there.

      Delete
  3. I went to this site yesterday. It didn't take long to figure out who and what it was. Wow! Julie Anne, you are powerful indeed if they need to fake being victims. I hope I'm never on your hit list. (just kidding) You have a very powerful ministry here. Thank you. Kate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 9:26 AM

      Julie Anne, you are powerful indeed if they need to fake being victims.

      Ah, the cry of "Persecution!" when they are not allowed to persecute everyone else...

      Delete
    2. Yes, H.U.G., if a pastor or church pulls the 'Persecution Card' then that somehow rallies the in-crowd troops to take a stand against any hint of persecution of Christians or Christian groups in America!

      This shakes down as a slick and beguiling tactic! It is a diversionary scheme from what really is actual.

      Delete
  4. Julie Anne,

    You have told so many lies that even you believe them now. How terribly sad. And how terrible it is that you use the Word of God to back yourself up. No one knows (because you don't tell them) that the reason this whole thing started is because Y-O-U were under church discipline.

    The name of Christ is disgraced by you and your foolish and prideful behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me, anonymous, wouldn't one know they are in church discipline? Wouldn't one be brought before the Body when they are in church discipline? It never happened. That's been a consistent fabrication that everybody knows. Maybe I should post the church bylaws so everyone can see what never happened to us. And btw, church discipline for what? We had never been brought before elders for anything. We did however request meetings to ask THEM questions.

      Delete
    2. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM

      doubleplusgoodthink, comrade anonymous!
      doubleplusgood doubleplusduckspeak!

      Delete
    3. Apparently you were on the Double Secret Probation which is outlined in the Gospel of Animal House.......

      Delete
  5. So bgbcsurvivors.org is an attempt on Chuck’s part to flesh out the picture for us, to tell "the true story" of BGBC. But I’m not sure his efforts are going to reap much fruit outside being a showcase for church members, a museum of justifications, revelations of facts that misdirect us from the real story of spiritual abuse. Will anyone on the outside care to watch his videos? Honestly, how many actually read Chuck’s voluminous press release? Still, if his intent is to clear his image, I’m willing to engage him, to examine "the true story" concerning the elders of BGBC.

    Presently, however, my first and second comments are still being held in moderation. So, again, fwiw and for safe keeping I’ll just drop my last one here. It's in response to something Dale Weaver wrote here:
    http://www.bgbcsurvivors.org/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-site/#comment-6

    . .

    monax says:
    December 12, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Dale Weaver,

    you express how it is “good to finally have a forum to expose the lies being spread about [BGBC] and Pastor Chuck.” Your hope is that those outside your church “will take the time to hear the truth,” consider “the evidence,” and judge the elders to be ruling faithfully.

    I’m personally glad for this opportunity to examine further evidence. In fact, your comment above appears to provide further evidence against you—evidence supporting my conviction that BGBC is in possession of a sick and abusive eldership.

    As a faithful elder, a shepherd in the Church of Christ, What is your role? You remind us of what Hebrews 13:7 says: “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.”

    Question, Dale. In your above comment, How have you conducted yourself? What sort of faith, hope and love have you exhibited for the world to see? As you “warn the church that [Tim and Meaghan Varela, and Julie Ann Smith] have not been and will not be a blessing to any church they attend” you mark yourself as someone who is neither thinking or speaking from the heart of a true shepherd. Where is the love that “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor 13:7)?

    Do you realize your comment relegates these individuals to an unfruitful life of service for the Lord. Is such a sentence something a Spirit-filled shepherd should be pronouncing? Can you not believe something better for them, or for yourself when they were still with you?

    I personally know Julie Anne to be a blessed sister in Christ. She’s your sister too, if you are His. And for all of us who are in Christ—this is our blessed reality: that we bear fruit for the glory of God, that we live as blessed expressions of His good pleasure. Yes, we are personally responsible for cultivating the gift of life we’ve been given, yet as we faithfully do this it is the divine work of the Spirit Who empowers us to will and to do according to His good purpose (for we are His workmanship). My point is this: every one of God’s children is an absolute blessing to the church. God, Himself, secures this reality. For you to say differently is false, among other things.

    But yes, Dale, I will embrace your efforts here toward articulating the truth to outsiders. Yet I need to ask: Is this forum sincerely geared toward an open and true examination of your church? My last comment has been held for moderation for some time now. Will it post, or is this forum for BGBC members only? I’m ready to engage you, and I’d love to give you the chance to demonstrate that your not the Spiritually Abusive Perps you appear to be.

    David Johnson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, David, for letting us know about the comments you have been attempting to post at the Impostor Site. I wonder what comments they will allow.

      Dale, mentioned above, is a long-time elder at the church. We had 11 hrs of meetings with the elders before leaving. The meetings were at OUR request - we were asking THEM questions.

      BTW, did you notice that Hebrew 13:7 verse Dale posted in his comment (http://www.bgbcsurvivors.org/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-site/#comment-6)? They are taught that verse at the Creepy Spiritual Abuse School (CSAS). That is a key verse that spiritual abusers use - they love to draw attention to "their" self-imposed authority over people. I did 2 blog posts about this particular verse where I tore it apart. Dale is using it in an authoritarian abusive fashion. Wasn't that nice of Dale to model this common abusive trait for us all to see?

      Obey Those Who Rule Over You, and be Submissive Part 1 and Obey Those Who Rule Over You and Be Submissive, Part 2

      Delete
    2. David just read Julie Annes reply... "Imposter Site" "Creepy Spiritual Abuse School"

      Do you apply the same standard to her as you do Dale...

      If not what does that say about your character?

      Is she being a blessing by cultvating gossip?

      Question: Since when did the "Spiritual Abuse Police" proceed the authority of the Bible?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, sign in with a pseudonym or something, and then I'll be happy to engage you.

      Delete
    4. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 12:16 PM

      Do you apply the same standard to her as you do Dale...

      If not what does that say about your character?


      It says Anonymous is into character assassination.

      Delete
    5. OH LOOK!! More name calling. WOW that was insightful... Didn't see that coming. I must assume that if you had an intelligent answer that you wouldn't have sunk back to your base instinct of "I know you are but what am I?"

      GROW UP!


      Perhaps I'm in the business of character protection.... Hmm, MAYBE?

      Anyway I noticed no one had the courage to ANSWER the question.

      And don't bother with the "If you had courage you would not hide behind the anonymous name thing."

      Just be honest and answer the question and maybe the saints of God can be edified by all this instead of having the name of Christ drug through the mud AGAIN by all this senseless infighting.

      Besides it doesn't matter who asked the question. It's still true and the truth is what matters in the end not some ones name.

      Delete
    6. Surely are working overtime to protect a name though, aren't you?

      Delete
    7. No a mans character. Names do not difine a man but his charater does.

      Delete
    8. How do you determine a man's character, Anonymous? Is it by his actions?

      Delete
    9. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 18, 2012 at 10:47 AM

      Blind Loyalty to Pastor Chuck -- what else?

      Delete
  6. I personally really like the bgbcsurvivors.org! I think it shows you to be the liar that you really are. They certainly have a lot of evidence against you and the Varelas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please show me the evidence, Anonymous.

      Delete
    2. Read it on the bgbcsurvivors.org. Dummy! That is if you can see past your self for just two seconds.

      BTW this is not the same annoymous.

      Delete
    3. The reason I have the no anonymous posting rule is because no one can tell who is who (just as you alluded to). So now you get a warning: if you leave your comment under the "Anonymous" name, I may delete it, especially if you are calling someone names.

      Secondly, you are being too vague. Tell me specifically what I have lied about and what evidence you are referring to. I haven't spent much time "there", but I could tear apart every post and find discrepancies in his version of the story. He does much speculation and uses that speculation as fact to present to his congregants who then go on and repeat his speculation as fact. When you read the comments, they use identical word phrases that we have previously heard from him. It reminds me of brainwashing.

      Delete
    4. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM

      Whether Anonymous is one or two, he definitely sounds like a Total BGBC Fanboy. Or a sock puppet (or two) of the BGBC regime. Plausible Deniability and all that.

      Delete
    5. Hmmm... Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

      "I may delete it, especially if you are calling someone names."

      There are some terms that come to mind.... Now let me see. Is "Spiritual Rapist", "Wolf", or "Creepy" (just to name a few). Name calling?

      How about Hypocrite? Is THAT name calling or simply correct characterization?

      Must feel pretty good being able to simply hit the delete key anytime someone shows you up...

      Go ahead, you know you want to hit it.

      No one will know. Just you and your conscience.....

      Well maybe not your conscience.. He would need to be present.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous - I am glad you mentioned commented (well, except for the fact that you used the Anonymous name as I have requested that commenters NOT do) . I can't remember if it was in a video or comment, but yesterday was the first time I saw the word Spiritual Rapist. Where did that come from? I don't ever recall using those words, but I did notice it two places on the Impostor Site. I think maybe one was in Charlie's "testimony". I think the other one was by Chuck - and this one may have been in a video. I'm wondering if he coined the term himself. And if so, I find that quite interesting.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anon (8:13 p.m.)

      Why would our hostess delete your comment? You're pretty harmless, all things considered. ;)

      Delete
    8. My comment at 6AM should read: I am glad you commented (delete "mentioned").
      I thought I fixed that oops! This is Blogger where I cannot edit comments.

      Delete
    9. Why would our hostess delete Anonmymous' comment? Laying aside any issue of content, the commentor continues to disrespect Julie Anne's request to refrain from posting Anonymously. That's the bottom line, for me, the commentor refuses to respect the minimal requirement for entry into this conversation.

      Get a name, any pseudonym will do, and stop acting like a troll!


      fwiw, here's the link to the emails from Meaghan to Chuck where she, on Nov 10, 2008, expresses her anger that he will not take correction, and that she no longer regards him as her pastor.

      In an email on Nov 26, 2008 she again cries out to Chuck: "please just stop this -- make it stop!" She continues her earnest pleas with: "you say you know God's love -- and yet we are being spiritually raped..."

      There you have it. Someone who both loves and knows Chuck well characterized him as a spiritual rapist. Apparently, this was private information that Chuck is now revealing to the world in an attempt to help his case?


      http://www.bgbcsurvivors.org/wp-content/uploads/meaghan-varela-emails-june-nov.pdf

      Delete
    10. Thank you monax for finding that information. Now it makes sense. Yes, those are very powerful words from a person who is obviously hurting.

      Delete
    11. Hurts to be (and to watch others being) spiritually raped!


      "When one member suffers we all suffer" (1 Cor 12).

      Delete
  7. Self-awareness doesn't appear to be part of the .org site.

    You'd think you brought the lawsuit Julie Anne and not Mr. O'Neil.

    This comes to mind:

    http://www.nakedpastor.com/2012/12/08/jesus-a-spoiled-child/

    Bene D


    ReplyDelete
  8. I would just like to set the record straight. Eddie Joe does not support any information against Pastor Kevin or Eagle Heights Church. People have been told to contact him regarding this matter. If you contact him you will find that he still respects Pastor Kevin Dunn and has nothing against EHCC. "when God is moving, Satan will attack!!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's too bad. I heard enough in one sermon to determine otherwise.

      Delete
  9. How nice for you to find a "survivor" blog where you can enjoy constructively commenting there on and on as your true self, perhaps even as a non-anon using your true name. (It does seem that most of the Anonymous comments here have been ... oh ... rather designed to agitate emotionally instead of contribute anything substantive to a dialog.)

    On the subject of the parallel world of the dot org blog, I did find it rather odd, though, that those who posted included the content of a card and emails written by other people. I thought I understood U.S. copyright law to be that the person who writes anything owns the copyright to it from the second it's been written, and a person who receives it does not. Curious ... did the Varelas give written permission for the posters to use the material that they, the Varelases, own? The manner of posting said card and emails would seem to make it appear the dot org posters had the documentable permission of the Varelas to do so.

    So ... if you wanted to be a constructive contributor on this survivor blog, and since you really like the dot org version, maybe you could check into that issue on our behalf and come back to enlighten us as to whether that legal assumption is correct, and if it is, how the posting of the card and emails is not an outright misuse of someone else's property/content. Or are the dot org posters just "righteous posers" or imposters?

    Will look forward to hearing from you soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. That was meant to be a reply to "Anonymous" of December 12, 2012 7:04 PM. But Fred Flinstone, being a "modernstonic family" man, isn't always up on technology. Sorry.

      Delete
    2. Hey Fred - Nice to see you again. You know, I'm going to have to ask Meaghan or Tim if they gave written permission for the use of their e-mails/letters/cards. It wouldn't be the first time Chuck has aired personal conversations without someone's permission. I should ask some of my attorney connections, too. Thanks for mentioning this.

      About that .org thing - my husband just said to me, "so Chuck stole your blog name? What kind of pastor steals a blog name?" And yes, I got permission to post my husband's quoted words.

      Delete
    3. imo posting sent emails/letters/cards is perfectly kosher as they are being entered as evidence. legally he doesn't need permission.

      Delete
    4. It is only a violation of copyright law if the person claims the work as their own. If they are posting it so that others may see what they are criticizing and/or supporting then it is called "fair use" under U.S. law.

      Delete
  10. How childish. How sad. If those responsible for that blog truly believe that Julie Anne and others are "the enemy", have they never pondered our Lord's words in Luke 6:28? Matthew 5:44? Romans 12:14-21?

    But, predictably, they will retort with Matthew 18:17, where our Lord says if a brother will not listen to the church, we should treat him as a heathen and tax collector.

    But assuredly, I tell you, Christ never treated heathen and tax collectors like this.

    No. He ate with them. He talked with them. He treated them with love. Care. Respect. In spite of who they were.

    If one won't listen to the Lord's words or follow his example, then what can be said of their church? Their elders? Their pastor?

    "Eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear" (Jeremiah 5:21).





    ReplyDelete
  11. So I read and watched the corresponding videos of about half of the blog posts on Chuck's blog... A couple of thoughts (in no particular order) ran through my mind as I did.
    1) His points and blog titles and content often did not make logical sense to me... Like that this blog is "dedicated to the destruction of his church and families"??? - really? This blog was dedicated to all topics surrounding spiritual abuse. Some application and stories are taken from personal experiences with his church, sure (since this blog was originally created since Chuck got Google to remove her reviews), but more and more often, my mother has been focusing on other issues.
    2) Is creating/editing quite a few videos to blast a couple of women using the time God gave him wisely and for God's glory?
    3) I think it entertaining reading/hearing the descriptive and extremely strong verbage he uses... It actually makes me not believe his side more.
    4) Cover a point, and move on... no need to go over the same story over and over and over... It makes your readers think that you don't communicate effectively, or that you think they are dumb - pick your poison.

    But finally 5)His blog seems to be an attempt to get more attention directed his way. Another thing I don't find Christ-like. So much for his humility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, did you see that apple hit the ground and go rolling? :)

      Good words, daughter!

      Delete
    2. Well stated, Hannah!! I wondered if someone who seeks attention got the idea that he needed to use the internet in order to have a wider audience--since the church has visibly shrunk in size over the past while.

      People who 'need attention' find ways to get it. Charming. Yes, I guess when you have that much time on your hands you need to put your energies into some creative dramatic productions--to draw people's heartfelt attention by hearing and supporting such sad survivor accounts!! Oh my, such a sad and woeful story. Is anyone listening?? It really pulls on your heartstrings. Not!!

      Delete
    3. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 12:19 PM

      Does "sad survivor accounts" include scenes of begging and crying children?

      Delete
    4. Barb -You are so right. I've read accounts of a man who people say spiritually abuses and pastors church of SIX. Yet, his internet presence would make one think he pastors a mega-church.

      Delete
  12. I just spent about 30 minutes watching some of these videos over at that site. Folks this is no longer funny, we need to collectively pray for this man and those at this very unhealthy church. For a "pastor" to set up a site like this shows he is unqualified and unfit for ministry. What normal pastor sues a couple of women that left "his church" , loses the case before it starts in an anti-slap proceeding and then goes on to do EXACTLY WHAT HE ACCUSED THESE WOMEN OF DOING ? The site actually goes well beyond stating an opinion and accuses several women of criminal acts, false police reports, lying to the police, slander, defamation etc. Didn't he sue for this already and lose ?

    Is the $60,000 that this has cost this "church" not enough ? Does there really need to be more litigation, does Beaveraton Grace Bible need to be financially massacred before this man gets it and just stops. Is he just a egomaniac, control freak or full out psychopath ? Check out his site and your guess is as good as mine.

    Watching Chuck and Beaveraton Grace Bible church self destruct.
    Andy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You nailed it Andy!!!

      Step Down Chuckie!! You weren't called to be a pastor you are making History though lol..
      " The Suing Pastor" you'll be forever remembered as that.!!!!

      By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them. (Proverbs 14:3

      One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless. A man of quick temper acts foolishly, and a man of evil devices is hated. (Proverbs 14:16, 17 ESV)
      He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, But he who heeds rebuke gets understanding. The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, And before honor is humility. (Proverbs 15:32, 33

      The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord ; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished. Understanding is a wellspring of life to him who has it. But the correction of fools is folly. (Proverbs 16:4, 5, 22

      A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. An evil man seeks only rebellion, and a cruel messenger will be sent against him. Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs rather than a fool in his folly. (Proverbs 17:10-12 ESV)

      Delete
    2. Man Anonymous you speak like you realy know the situation.
      Were you there? Do you know ALL the facts or just the ones that were presented to you by this site?

      Is it possible you don't see the whole picture?

      Is it ever right for a pastor to sue some one?

      At what point do you or a pastor say, "Thats enough!!" and fight back with legal means?

      Would you be mad if someone attacked your family for four years?

      Are pastors suppose to simply lay down and let people kick them in tell they die?

      Delete
    3. [[My apologies for the previous deleted versions of this same comment. I have been up nearly 20 hours straight, having seen the midnight showing of *The Hobbit*, and kept messing up. But I thought it was important to get it right, and clear as possible.]]

      Pastor Charles O'Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church did fight back with legal means through the defamation lawsuit they as plaintiffs filed. This is part of what the civil authority of the court decided:

      "The court further finds that plaintiff [i.e., Charles O'Neal and BGBC] has not met the burden of presenting substantial evidence the defendant’s statements are defamatory."

      Judge Jim L. Fun
      Order on Motion to Dismiss, page 8
      Case No. C121174CV
      July 23, 2012

      http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2012-07-23-Order%20on%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf

      The evidence the plaintiffs presented did NOT meet legal muster. The court so decided. So, "Anonymous," are you suggesting that Judge Fun who presided over this case and dismissed all charges didn't know ALL the facts? Didn't see the whole picture? Didn't let Pastor O'Neal et al fight back with legal means?

      Or, do you not even accept the legal authority of this state court in which Pastor O'Neal and BGBC filed their suit?

      The plaintiffs had their day in court. The plaintiffs presented their evidence -- and is that evidence any different from what is on their website now? -- and the plaintiffs lost their case.

      Do you think you or they will somehow now win the case here on BGBCSurvivors.blogspot.org? Or will win it there on the BGBCSurvivors dot org/net/com domains registered to Chuck O'Neal in mid-April 2012 ... not even two full months after Julie Anne Smith started her blog?

      Are pastors supposed to simply lay down and let people kick them in until they die? Pastor O'Neal had his day in court and the presiding Judge, Jim L. fun, decided on behalf of the people that the plaintiffs did not succeed according to the law in making their case that the defendants defamed the plaintiffs.

      What would the Scriptures now suggest as a resolution to his anger, since he has used legal means and the court found him to have lost his case? And what will you do with your anger?

      Delete
    4. Wow good responce. Sincer and intelegent. Thank you. I will consider your words and reply at a later time.

      Delete
  13. I believe that Julie Ann may have a copyright interest in the term "BGBC Survivors" and "BGBCSurvivors" and that the dot org entity is illegally encroaching on her interest, willingly and intentionally, which is an offense of the law in at least some U.S. jurisdictions. It is clearly an attempt to draw away people who search for the entity. The domain name can be challenged with the registry as well and that can be done without court action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, An Attorney. i can ask my attorney about this. I've heard you mentioning this before when I was talking about a blog name change a while back.

      Delete
    2. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 9:34 AM

      It is clearly an attempt to draw away people who search for the entity.

      And a pretty underhanded way to boot.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it's underhanded - but what else can we expect from a wienerschnitzel like him?

      Delete
  14. Hey folks, I added a new "page" to the blog. It appears that no comments other than church members are allowed at the Impostor Blog. So if you attempt to leave a comment there, feel free to copy it on the new page. It might be interesting to see what comments they are not approving.

    I'm also going to keep a running list of names they call us. That is for my entertainment :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM

      So only Cheerleaders, Yes Men, and Pastor's Sock Puppets are allowed.

      Delete
    2. Make sure you use an appropriately modest sock for the puppet, and women sock puppets must not speak when men sock puppets are speaking, unless it is an update on the sock puppet pot luck dinner.

      Delete
    3. Buff - you have been reading here entirely too long!!! Touché!!! :)

      Delete
    4. :-) What can I tell you, I'm a heathern. But I'm a FUNNY heathern.

      I'm tempted to go over and see what the Right Reverend has to say as a true survivor, but I don't want to give him the web traffic.

      Delete
    5. Sure!
      "horse's patoot"
      "wienerschnitzel"

      There you go!

      Delete
  15. I was curious about the website posted on your previous entry. I didn't pursue it then. Wow!

    I guess he has a first amendment right to voice his opinion. The blog name and all that...I don't know enough about. It sounds like this is more for him and his church members to whine and vent over, especially if he's not allowing any outside comments. Very childish and passive aggressive indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's very interesting. Blog started 12/2 and almost all comments began 12/11. Shoot, have I been doing it all wrong? I didn't know I was supposed to send out a memo to solicit comments.

      Delete
    2. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM

      Just like the USSR and their Party Commissars of Spontaneous People's Demonstrations...

      Delete
    3. Learned it from Julie Anne.
      Shes the best!

      Delete
    4. 12/2 was a Sunday, 12/11 was a Tuesday. Wonder what the message was in church on 12/9?

      I wonder how many members of the congregation he called Monday night and Tuesday morning when he wasn't getting any comments on the blog?

      Delete
  16. Julie Anne,

    "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

    And you are not a "Dummy." You write well and your posts are well-edited.

    But a few people need some work on writing and editing:

    Anonymous 1 - * indicates a spelling, grammar, or punctuation error
    "If not* what does that say about your character?

    Is she being a blessing by *cultvating* gossip?

    Question: Since when did the "Spiritual Abuse Police" *proceed* the authority of the Bible?

    ######
    Anonymous 2 * indicates a spelling, grammar, or punctuation error

    Read it on *the* bgbcsurvivors.org. Dummy! That is if you can see past your self for just two seconds.

    BTW this is not the same *annoymous*.

    ######

    No, this was not the same person, JA - this is "ANNOY"-mous! And that's not a lie, that's exactly what they typed. Thanks, ANNOY-mous for the LOL!
    We survivors all need to restore our sense of humor! :-)

    I saw the .org link when it was posted and felt they are "stuck in a rut".

    It doesn't bother me anymore when the word "gossip" is tossed out as an accusation - I realize it's a control tactic. I don't think gossip is going on here at .com - I'm finding healing here. And some humor! :-)
    "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine". Look it up, Chuck & friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. re: "Gossip." One of my friends survived several years of shunning and worse from the directives of a supremely abusive "pastor." One of the things they tried to do was to silence him. Despite all that, he came through with his faith intact. And of "gossip," he told me, "If you're telling what happened to you, it isn't gossip."

      re: "Cultivating Gossip." As a research writer myself for over 30 years, I see that there is a biblical purpose to exposing to the light what lies in the darkness. After all, the New Testament writings are full of examples of documenting people who create conflicts, teach falsehood, misuse power and overlord their authority over others.

      If readers of the pseudo-BGBCSurvivors dot org blog believe that kind of spotlighting was only for the early church era, or only for the apostles to do, then certainly it is inconsistent for them to be reading the dot org blog - - because isn't that what it claims to be doing? Spotlighting those who allegedly harmed their reputation?

      I am always concerned that "citizen journalists" do their work well, show ethics and consideration for their sources and their readers, and correct errors in conclusions if/when those come to light. In these regards, Julie Anne seems to do her background research well, and she is raising topics that actually have to do with the spiritual well-being and protection of those who follow Jesus. Her research is relevant, checked for accuracy by crowd-sourced feedback, and on rare occasions corrected or updated. That makes this about cultivating truthfulness, righteousness, and hope.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for cerecting my speling i are not very good at it. Must mean in stupd of somthin.

      :P

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, not stupid, just blinded. We all were when we were at that institution. But I am now convinced that God will lift that blindness in due time. As I see more and more families freed from there, I have hope for you too!

      Delete
    4. Amen, Don!

      Please send along Merry Christmas greetings to your fam from the Smith clan. Love you guys!

      Delete
  17. It's clear that Chuck is only publishing comments which agree with him.

    You'd think that he would want to vanish from the public radar now, but apparently not...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But in his mind he is right and so all the more reason to be in the public radar to defend himself and his reputation.

      Delete
    2. The irony is that the only person responsible for the damage to Chuck O'Neal's reputation is Chuck O'Neal. But he just hasn't learned his lesson. He will only damage himself further with his new videoblog.

      Delete
    3. The sad thing is that if his pattern proves true, he won't learn his lesson.

      Delete
    4. NOt lik jULIE annE. SHE ALWAYS post every reply. Even though they dont spell RIght or weather or not they AGGree with HIR.

      Delete
    5. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

      Hi there, Pastor Chuck. Or are you just one of his loyal attack dogs/sock puppets?

      Delete
  18. Ugh. A classic narcissist. I feel for his family, who will one day see the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Julie Anne, I know it’s been awhile, I just couldn't help myself to write something.... I decided to watch a couple of Chuck’s videos! I am literally so embarrassed for this man. Is this what he has been doing with his time? Are the folks at the church ok with this?? First he has squandered close to, I assume, about a $100,000 in attorney fee's...(Not a good use of the Lords resources). And of late, spending large amounts of time becoming” Utube man”, instead of being in God's word studying. He just doesn't have a clue how bad he looks to the world. Not to mention having his own wife crying for the camera. Unbelievable! Well, we have been praying that God would lead folks out of there, and it's very clear that God has been answering our prayers....I just heard they are down to about 30-40 folks now. I sincerely praise God for that!!!! I really do feel for the O’Neal family, as I believe they are really hurting; but it’s been years now, they need to move on with their lives! --- Don

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don - I don't know if they are capable of moving on. 30-40 is quite a difference from when we were there with 100. Wow. Maybe people are voting with their feet - - - - walking right out the door. Good for them. I pray they find a safe place where they can detox, be loved on, and experience the grace of God.

      Delete
  20. Well, it appears Christmas has come early for me. I was just thinking about how bored I am and need something to distract me; this should do the trick.

    I almost wonder if you should link to their blog from here. He is almost certainly tracking his web views. It might give him an even bigger ego if he thinks that it is achieving hits all on its own. If he sees how many are actually linking over from your site, it might help him see how delusional he is.

    Either way, I wanted to remind you that I think you are amazing and I am glad that you see this for what it is. Highly amusing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's only amusing at first. And then you know the reality behind the lives of people he has affected. Abuse sucks. He's like a bulldozer going over everyone, including those who still remain. They just don't realize it yet. Zack is probably close to legal adult age now. He is a member there and has been posting comments on that site. One day he is going to have a reality check: that his very own pastor robbed him of his childhood friends and isolated him by their un-biblical use of shunning. That's going to be a tough pill to swallow.

      Delete
    2. I apologize, I only meant his repeated attempts to repair his reputation by damaging it further. The abuse suffered has been very real and would never make light of that.

      Delete
    3. Oh, Shakes - no need to apologize. I laughed out loud the first time I saw it. I loved the Women of Mass Destruction reference. The imagination it takes to come up with such strong words - wow! The words are very revealing, too.

      But I don't worry about me - he has no control over me. I refuse to let that man control my freedom in Christ to say, think, believe what I want.

      It's the others - - - - those are the ones who get to me. Those are the ones who get me roused up - and ranting angry.

      Delete
  21. Also, I thought I would point out that this Bizzaro site is not a free blogging website. So not only is he wasting time, but he had to spend money to register the site and to host it somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the first person to mention that publicly, Shakes. A number of people have sent me e-mails about that fact - - people are definitely taking notice that it is taking a concerted effort to get his blog going and running. Can you imagine the effort to record and edit videos? That's a lot of time involved. For what? He could have just left my measly Google review alone, but noooooo.

      Delete
  22. I just deleted a post from "Anonymous" directing people to the Impostor's Blog. Although the link is referenced in today's post above, I'm not going to be allowing future promotion of that link here in the comments section. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hypocrite or Champion of free speech..... You decide.

      Delete
  23. Julie Anne,

    I just wanted to say how thankful I am that Barb Orlowski told me about your site. As you know, I went through spiritual abuse with my former church and, being able to read some of your posts and the dialogue here has helped me realize I am not alone. The information has been healing as it has shown me just how much abuse I really was exposed to and it has encouraged me in knowing there is hope in finding a healthy and loving community.

    I did go to the imposter site and listened to maybe 3-4 videos. For me, it seemed really weird, scripted and not really serving any kind of purpose. So, I won't go back there. There will never be anything posted there to encourage me in my healing journey.

    Thank you for taking a stand to expose abuse and to help those who are going through the same or similar kinds of things that you did. Please keep writing.

    God bless,
    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh goodness. This is both comical and sad. It makes it even worse that they advertise it on the main page of the church website. If I were looking for a church and had not heard about all that has transpired, that would cause me to look elsewhere without even looking at the survivor site.

    Doing a quick search-

    The new website in question was registered way back on April 18, 2012. The information in it was updated October 18, 2012. (This means information for the registry was made. It could be a name, an address, a phone number- anything on that line.) When it was registered, only a year was paid for the domain name, so it expires in a few months if it is not renewed.

    For those unaware, most domain names do not cost much, unless you buy special ones. A .org domain is not expensive. Depending on who it is purchased through, it can be of little cost.

    The one who registered the name says it was Chuck and it lists the church name, but gives the name of Stephanie with an email going to threadsketches.net. That .net domain name has been around since June 4, 2003. Stephanie Potts is the one who owns that domain and it appears she lives in Hillsboro, Oregon. It gives a different email contact with the name of the site (without the .net) on Yahoo.

    The new site is hosted by webmasters.com, who offers a domain name for free when hosting a site with them. That costs as little as $9.95 per month.

    So they sat on the site for months and didn't advertise it or appear to do anything with it until December or perhaps October when they made a registry change. I didn't bother to look much at the site. It appears they are after the Varella family with how many times I saw their names mentioned. I wonder even if they are hoping to be sued.

    Very strange for a church to do this. Again, it makes them look bad. It doesn't matter what "evidence" they think they have. It looks bad. The court saw the evidence presented by their attorneys. The court ruled against them. They should have let it rest, but instead are creating more negative publicity for themselves. Just like when they filed the lawsuit and they apparently didn't learn from that.

    Have any of you been paid anything on what was awarded you by the court?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, Lois, you are a wealth of information and you are also very insightful. I played the piano at BGBC and Stephanie sang on the praise and worship team (beautiful voice, btw, I always loved singing with her). She used to oversee the church website and probably still does, which explains her involvement with domain names. Hillsboro is a neighboring town of Beaverton.

      The publicity feeds the drive - doesn't matter whether it's negative or positive. It's not about learning anything because in their minds they are completely right and we are the enemy waging war against God, His church, wives, mothers, children. He never seems to say that we are waging war against pastors or men. Hmmm. I wonder why not? Is there some psychological explanation for that? I'm going to have to stew on that thought.

      Our attorney has not been paid yet (nor have we). A little extra Christmas money would be nice.

      Delete
    2. Does the April 18 date ring a bell for anything, or something a little prior to then? Do you recall when you first started writing about considering obtaining your own domain name? I remember it being discussed here but do not have the time to go hunting through the archives. If they obtained it soon afterward, then perhaps they were scared you might purchase the domain.

      They also have registered the .net domain by the same name. Done by the same woman on April 17, 2012 and info for the registry was again updated October 7, 2012. Again, Chuck's name is associated with it, with giving Stephanie's email. She is also listed, with her address, as the billing contact.

      The .com is also taken, but it appears this was done by someone else and the names are private. That was obtained May 15, 2012 through a different place. (There are some who buy up domain names when they see some are being taken, in hopes to sell it to you and make a profit.) So this one does not appear to be them.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure I've ever publicly discussed domain names. I can't remember. I have talked about changing the blog name shortly before the court hearing and a number of times later.

      Thanks for that information about the .net domain and Stephanie's involvement (and thank you for not posting her address/e-mail here, even though it is apparently public).

      Delete
    4. I know it came up somewhere in the comments about having a blog versus ones own website- the benefits, restrictions and such.

      Any domain name information is public knowledge. Some people pay extra to have their name, address and phone kept private. But you can still find when it was created, the info revised & when it expires if not renewed. There are a number of sites that give the information. I had to dig a little on the other two domains.

      Delete
    5. I believe that I may have found a source of potential confusion while I was conducting some background research. Here are the dates of domain creation, according to Whois:

      bcbcsurvivors.com was created April 17, 2012; Registrant = Chuck ONeal

      bgbcsurvivors.net was created April 17, 2012; Registrant = Chuck ONeal

      bgbcsurvivors.org was created April 18, 2012; Registrant = Chuck ONeal

      bgbcsurvivors.com was created May 13, 2012; Registrant = Domain Privacy Group

      If that appears confusing, because you can't have two domains with the exact same name, it’s probably from the same misreading that I did the first time I looked through these. The original dot com version (first domain created on April 17) was bCbcsurvivors, not bGbcsurvivors. The bGbcsurvivors appears to have been created and registered privately on May 15 to cover for the typo of the first one.

      So, I think that helps explain some of the initiation dates, and thanks Lois for finding details on when registry updates were made.

      Delete
    6. Oops. Another typo. The b-G-bcsurvivors dot com blog was created on May 13, not May 15 as I accidentally mistyped in the next to last paragraph. Human errors. Happen all the time to all of us.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for your information, Brad. This is all very interesting.

      Tell me - - what kind of pastor basically copies a blog name? It seems obvious this would be an intent to draw my readers to his blog. But anyway, what kind of a pastor begins a blog to call out former church members? This is all kinds of crazy from a Christian and secular standpoint. And now we know he has been stewing about it for months. One of the videos was taped just a couple months after the court hearing. This was a well thought out plan.

      When I think of pastor's blogs, I think of Ken's or Craig'. These men have the heart of shepherds. They care about people's souls. The evidence is so plain, isn't it?

      Delete
    8. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 18, 2012 at 4:07 PM

      Obsessives usually do have well thought out plans, or at least long-term obsessive plans. This is a revenge plot, pure and not-so-simple. This is Fifty Shades of Crazy.

      Delete
  25. I had to look. Does he give actual evidence anywhere? He just keeps saying its lies but there is nothing a normal person looks for on a blog as proof. The piece on shunning is embarrassing. All about how he never uses that word then goes on to describe how they act out that word. What does he think shunning means?

    The strangest part is he doesn't get that not allowing controversial comments is the first indication that the blog is a waste of time. Who gets the most hits? The blogs that allow questions and opposing viewpoints. There's a reason for that.

    The intro to the video about his depressed, constantly crying wife worried me. But then she was well dressed and groomed and didn't have the dead look the seriously depressed generally do, so I felt better. And some comments mentioned what a great mom she is so she appears to be functioing in a healthy manner. Perhaps Chuck simply isn't aware of the symptoms of a seriously emotionally damaged person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he attempted to give evidence, but if you notice, he only showed close-ups of part of documents, not the whole documents. I haven't seen the piece on shunning. If they used Romans 16:17 as a reference for shunning, I believe he is using it incorrectly along with many other verses he manipulates for his own benefit. He used to teach people to be good Bereans, but for some reason there is a disconnect between what they read and what they allow their pastor to manipulate in their mind.

      Tonya is very striking and always well dressed. She probably is not so much like me - I frequently wear my custom flannel pj loungewear and I'm sure she never drives anywhere in her flannel pjs like I have been known to do. :)

      Delete
    2. The strangest part is he doesn't get that not allowing controversial comments is further testimony against the church being healthy. It evinces a controlling and stifling spirit.

      Delete
    3. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM

      He comes across as a control freak having a hissy-fit because someone got Uppity.

      "Nothing's worse than a monster who thinks he's right with God."
      -- Captain Mal Reynolds, Free Trader Serenity, Verse Cluster

      Delete
  26. If you check out the Beaverton Church webpage, you will find a Scripture reference from 1 Cor. 4:12-13 right in the middle of the page. It is under ‘breaking the silence’ and other similar thoughts.

    See what you think:

    “12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. …”

    Hmmm. See anything unusual in how this verse might be being practiced by this group?? Sure don't see much 'blessing', 'enduring' and/or 'answering kindly' in the mix like they reference.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Julie Anne,

    I took a quick look at the Impostor Site the other evening. Your former church, and Pastor O'Neal, have definitely hit a new low. My first reaction (like that of many others) was amusement. Something like, "Aww, ain't that cute. They're pretending to be like Julie Anne. They actually think they can beat her at this game. Heh." Then, of course, I remembered what this means: O'Neal still has people under his thumb. And the fewer of them there are, the more they're probably hurting.

    What also saddens me, though, is the whole tone of persecution complex. I've watched none of the videos yet, but the little I read on the site was just appalling. More and more, BGBC is resembling (again) That Other "Church". The words and tones they use are almost exactly the same. "The critics are all liars! They're bitter, gossiping apostates! They're out to destroy us! We're the real victims here!"

    On top of that, they're shamelessly using a misleading domain name to make a 'smear site' against you and others -- yet another of "Their" tactics. I guess they think they'll steal your traffic. Or that they'll somehow convince the public this way. But it's so transparent it's almost pathetic.

    Most telling, it seems that Chuck O'Neal is utterly unable to learn from his mistakes. And that will ultimately be his ruin, like that of cult leaders everywhere.

    Hang in there, sister.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Serving. I think that is exactly what people are noticing. These people are speaking Chuck-ese. Have they lost their own voice?

      Delete
    2. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 17, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      doubleplusduckspeak Chuckspeak?

      Delete
  28. BTW: Wartburg Watch has a post on this latest BGBC development here.

    I posted a comment there and I am reposting it here because it is so revealing of what kind of person we are dealing with: Chuck O’Neal’s Church Launches ‘True BGBC Survivors’ Website

    During the court process, when discussing the sex abuse situation, my attorney took very special care to never reveal the identities of the sex abuse victims. She was livid that Chuck’s attorney allowed identifiable information to be included in the court declaration which is public information. I included a screen shot of a court documentation on my blog that referenced the abuser and even though his name was made public in court documents, during the court hearing, and elsewhere on the internet, I chose to blank out most of the name. There were a few spots that I missed and someone who formerly attended BGBC contacted me requesting that I completely remove all evidence of the perpetrator’s name. I honored that request.

    Contrast that with Chuck. I haven’t watched all the videos, but saw 2 videos of the parents of the abuser/victims. (The abuser was a teenage son who sexually molested younger siblings, one of which was a baby – he was tried, convicted, and sentenced time.) In that video, I was told, the children’s names were named. The parents allowed Chuck to videotape them and they named their own abused children’s names. Here is the question – - – what parent in their right mind would publicly name their children who were sexually violated? The key phrase is “in their right mind”. This is manipulation. Chuck is using this poor family who suffered a horrific situation in their family for his own defense. All the other junk, his wife getting 5,000 business card to hand out with Meaghan and my name on it talking about how evil we are, the ridiculous copy-cat blog title, the war-like words – whatever. But I think this specific situation really shows the character. A loving shepherd would do everything he could to protect this family, protect their identities, but instead he exploits them for his purposes. I feel very bad for them because one day, they will be shocked at what they allowed this man to do. They will feel terrible for also victimizing their children by publicly naming them without their consent. That is some pretty thick Kool-Aid.

    Another point: in one of the videos, it refers to the convicted sex offender’s crimes as “inappropriate touch”. This was also quoted in the msnbc.com interview as well as other online sources. My attorney looked up the criminal report. This young man was convicted of serious sex crimes and over 20 counts (rape, etc) with multiple children (his siblings). This was stated publicly in court, yet he still minimizes the extent of the crimes committed. (Perpetrator was convicted and served time – not sure if he is still serving or not.)

    This minimization of sex offenses is most likely why Chuck was investigated by DHS.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Julie Anne, why do you even waste your time with such foolish behavior? It is obvious to any sane human being that this church and pastor have some serious issues. However, the sad reality is that they think they are right in what they are doing and I assure you there is nothing you can say or do that will convince them otherwise. (been there done that) If what you exposed was not true, his church would be growing and flourishing, less your family and the others he sued. That must not be the case since he thinks the Christmas season is a good time to bash other human beings.

    What a tragedy taking place in today's churches, is it no wonder people are leaving in droves. I can't imagine someone checking out this church's blog and say "I think I would like to be a part of that Christian movement!"

    Chuck, what in the world are you thinking??? Do you really think REAL Christians are going to rally around a pastor whose mouth is filled with hate and criticism and then tape your poor wife crying because of the abuse? My question to you: was she crying and you ran and got the camera or did you set up the camera then have her start crying? My guess is the latter because I was really hard pressed to see any tears.

    What husband in his right mind would use his wife in front of maybe thousands of people in such a way only to vindicate himself. What are you hoping for - one of the major networks to pick your story up? It's not going to happen. I have to assume because you are a Pastor (as I stratch my head) that you prayed about this before you took this action and God told you this was what you needed to do? Even if everything you said was true (again I scratch my head), have you ever run across the scripture where God said that vengeance is His? Does someone really need to explain to you what that means? Why don't you focus on what time of the year it is, swallow your pride and spread some Christmas cheer. Sending Meaghan and Julie Anne a nice Christmas card would have had way more positive effect on you and your family than what you did and continue to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Raymond - I don't think there is anything I can do that will challenge Chuck or his followers. But I will keep speaking out about abuse.

      I'm going to go off on a tangent a bit - I share my story and the stories of others because sometimes plain English just doesn't sink in. Sometimes we emotionally connect to a personal story. That's what happened with me at another blog and why I love when people share their stories with me. I've told you and mentioned on the blog before that when I read your story, I sobbed. It never would have impacted me if someone just told me factual information of what had happened to you. Sometimes it takes that emotional connection or God just opening eyes for people to see the truth.

      Raymond - Your story still gets a lot of hits and as you know, there were a bunch of new hits this last week. The story of spiritual abuse destroying a marriage is not discussed much. I know it doesn't take away your pain, but I know that people are reading your story and hopefully your tragic story will help people realize they are not alone. Having that feeling of being the only one can be very scary. Thank you again for your vulnerability in sharing such a difficult story. I still pray for you!

      Delete
  30. Julie Anne @7:45am -

    I don't understand the lengths that Chuck is going to to validate himself and his decisions. I can't imagine the family with the abused children continuing to put their family in these positions. I don't understand making videos. Do they not understand the effect that this will have on their children in the future? It really boggles my mind. It is quite sad for the children who were abused. They will deal with consequences of all of this for a long time. I pray that God heals them and that their parents start making decisions that show love for their children and not misplaced commitment to this church and pastor. Thanks for all you are doing Julie Anne.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Truthseeker says:

    December 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    Taken from BGBS Survivors


    So a news article I read today said a contractor in Virginia is accused of stealing jewelry by an angry woman leaving YELP reviews and wins ($750K?) but a Pastor is accused of gross sex/child abuse stuff in reviews and his suit is denied a hearing. Nice America, real nice.


    That's because a Pastor supposed to SUE!!! It Goes against Scripture but you people just don't get it!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JOHN. I think you meant isn't supposed to sue!

      Delete
  32. Unbelievable. I mean truly, the impostor blog content is unbelievable. But considering the source I expect nothing better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, wallflower. It's hard to wrap your head around this kind of thing, isn't it? You know what's strange? Every single picture I have seen of me while attending that church, even at a wedding, I look like a zombie - like the life was being sucked from me. I believe it really was.

      Delete
    2. Well yes, when your attention is drawn from the Giver of Life by a false idol, an attention seeker, the life of the Spirit is sucked from you. I remember feeling like I was suffocating & thirsting for the living water that was being withheld and unable to find it while I was there. I see the same looks on the faces of Kevin's parents. Blank, numb, settling for scraps of love from a man rather than a flood of love from God. In light of this weeks' events all I can say is "Come Lord Jesus!"

      Delete
    3. I'll add that these videos are edited like commercials for Heald college and the like. They are jumpy and sentences are cut off and spliced.

      Delete
  33. Hey, Julie Anne, I have a couple of questions about BGBC.

    I looked over their site, watched videos and read comments. Do people at BGBC really talk like this? really write comments like this? I mean in general. What I saw and read was a highly dramatized and emotionally charged use of superlatives and absolutes in describing their situation and the party on the other side. And it was bad drama at that. Are these people real?

    "In all my years of being a Christian…I have never seen a better example of tares among the wheat than that of Julie Anne Smith and Meaghan Varella."

    "Almost worse than lying about the church was how this woman would craft her lies to match her audience."

    "This woman, Julie Anne Smith, left our church in the fall of 2008, and was involved with a group who tried to rip our church apart!"

    "We must warn the church that these people have not been and will not be a blessing to any church they attend."

    "Our church has been too silent on this entire issue too long, while Julie Anne and her faithful minions have spewed lies and hate for years!"

    "I would be trembling in fear of God if I were them."

    "Then there are the non-Lordship heretics, all the rage today, who believe you can continue in sin and God’s grace is big enough to cover you."

    "Pastor Chuck you are a mighty man of valor and one who has withstood where many would have fallen."

    "I have also been grieved by the fact that many supposed 'Christian brethren' have jumped on Julie Anne’s blog, and swallow everything she says, hook, line, and sinker…with not even a care of her intent to try and destroy our church with malicious lies, slander, and gossip!"

    "I’ve admired you and your wife’s restraint in the face of such persecution. There is so much slander online about you and so little response by you and the people of this church. You must be doing the work of our Lord if you’re meeting such unhinged hatred."

    "Yeah. Merry Christmas! What timing! These people are more heartless than Ebeneezer Scrooge himself."

    Okay, I give up. I'm going to wear out my right mouse button. *Sigh*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of these are just horrible, Steve, and it is hard to believe that they came from a "pastor" and Christian community.

      I did get a little chuckle out of the "hook, line, and sinker"! I remember that because that phrase was used in two different peoples comments. So, I wonder besides his scripts, do you think Chuck has general guidelines and templates he handed out for commenters?!

      Delete
    2. Steve: I always read your comments carefully because you always seem to see what is really going on underneath and can articulate it so well. What you have pointed out is right on: "What I saw and read was a highly dramatized and emotionally charged use of superlatives and absolutes"

      I'm not sure if you read the Smoothie series I did a while back. I took my readers on an intentional roller coaster ride demonstrating what it was like to listen to his sermons week after week. Without letting my readers know what I was doing, I forced them to read 75% of the same content day after day, only adding 25% new material. It was a fun experiment and when you read the comments, you can see it took some readers a while to finally figure out what was going on (just like it took a lot of us a while to figure out what was going on sitting under his preaching).

      One of the first things I noticed about him was what you describe: highly dramatized and emotionally charged use of superlatives and absolutes in his preaching. Week after week we heard Chuckese phrases - over and over again. If you were to ask anyone who went there, they could probably list off a bunch of those phrases for you. They can't help but speak Chuckese. In order to remain at that church, they have to go along with his thinking, his opinions, and as evidenced in the videos/comments, his words. You see, this flatters him.

      There is a reason for this madness. Hearing/seeing his people publicly repeat his words only builds him up and fuels him. This is part of the narcissist pattern - a narcissist requires that people build him up. They need that fuel, the sense of being loved by others and attention from others. On the flip side, they also need someone to devour. Care to guess who he is trying to devour? You are all getting to watch this publicly. All of this, of course, is my very opinionated opinion. I will not be afraid of man. I don't care about my reputation. I don't care if there are 1,000 blogs against me, the Woman of Mass Destruction.

      Delete
    3. Tammy, we are all inevitably affected by our cultural environments, and church cultures are no exception. Ideas, beliefs, values, and attitudes are circulated. All sorts of phrases and dispositions (biblical or unbiblical) gain common currency. There’s this spiritual osmosis—a cultural “spirit” (however gracious or legalistic) that becomes us, inhabits us, talks and lives itself out through us. My guess is that these “general guidelines and templates” were not so much handed out on paper, as they were already imprinted upon the hearts and minds of the BGB faithful as religiously communicated there by leadership.

      One of the creepy things about christian fundamentalism is how uniform their dress, speech and behavior are. When there's no freedom for any diversity of expression outside their legalistic frameworks, there is a crushing of the spirit as everyone conforms to the status quo. Conform or go to hell—that's the game there.

      And when your spirit is crushed your gonna get angry, maybe even become hateful. But the archons of these cultures know how to channel that anger and hatred toward those who do not submit to their rule.

      As I’m typing about this cultural absorption and embodiment I remember a piece of dream I had this morning. Fwiw, (and without going into detail) in my dream I see (as a rubric) the word “Habitus”—a term I learned back in the 90's studying social theory, reading Bourdieu.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus_(sociology)

      "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:1).

      Delete
    4. Creepy. Like spiritual zombies.

      Delete
    5. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

      One of the creepy things about christian fundamentalism is how uniform their dress, speech and behavior are.

      That anything like the New Soviet Man?

      Delete
  34. Chuck O'Neal's a spiritual retard!

    *This statement and all others that I post on this blog are my opinion based upon the facts as I understand them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's also posting like mad at the Wartburgwatch blog! Shouldn't. He be prepping for a sermon or something usefull?
      You are Consumed Man!!!! Get a life and move on!!!!

      Delete
  35. Andy on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:16 PM said:
    Chuck when are you going to learn ? The anti-slap filing shutdown your lawsuit because you didn’t have a legal basis for filing it. You have made a total national spectacle out of yourself, your church and now your family. Posting on this blog that Julie Anne “lied” is defamation and foolish of someone that already has to pay the defendant’s legal fees. Are you looking for more time in court ? You are about the poorest excuse of a pastor that I have ever encountered. You are not qualified to pastor or serve as an elder under the biblical requirements. You lack the maturity,emotional balance and common sense as well. If you continue to insist on staying in the ministry you will bring further damage to this church and your family. For the sake of your family resign and let this church find a mature, qualified pastor that is capable of serving with humility and that can turn your mess into a well balanced and healthy church. YOU lost the case, get over it. Continuing this is SIN and I’m publicly calling on you to repent and leave the ministry. YOU CLEARLY ARE NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Julie Anne,
    I know this discussion may be bringing up painful memories. And Chuck's portrayal of you is certainly less than flattering, though you do appear mainly as Meaghan's sidekick and her sometime doer of evil deeds. The interesting part for me though was to see the documents and to see what Chuck calls his historical timeline. It's all laid out and he even conveniently highlighted the parts that he thinks prove his side but that actually point out his twisted thinking. It's all right there for us to see, his over-the-top reactions to what were merely complaints about a minister and invitations to friends to attend a different church. Tim's emails in particular sound so reasoned and kind in contrast to Chuck's demands to Tim and to Tim and Meaghan's pastor.

    So I guess the benefit is that those of us who have not experienced it can see firsthand exactly what written spiritual intimidation looks like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jackie: I think I mentioned this on TWW - - that the only good that I can see in this is that people are getting to see what spiritual abuse looks like in action - on both sides, mistakes and all. I hope people learn from my mistakes.

      Delete
  37. Julie Anne,
    I have a question. On BGBC's blog there is an e-mail from Tim Varela dated October 24, 2008. It states "The christian suicide teaching didn't cause me to look elsewhere." To what teaching is Tim referring? Is this a doctrine that is unique to BGBC? Could you or Tim or Meaghan talk about this? It appears there is more to this whole thing than just the sex offender and Google reviews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am limiting my time at his blog because I see no good in it. I have not read the letter you are referring to, but know a bit about the situation and hopefully this will give a little more info.

      A very dear and close friend of the pastor's committed suicide. The circumstances in this man's personal life were heart-wrenching and I imagine most people (Christians, included) would have an understanding of the amount of pain this man had endured which led him to take his life.

      The sermon Chuck preached in response to the suicide was seen as a turning point to some. For me, it was the very first and only time at BGBC I had seen/heard Chuck preach on the topic of "grace" where I felt "grace". In fact, I personally thanked Chuck for the sermon because he showed the kind of grace I believe God offers us. For others, it brought confusion because of earlier teachings and opened up a whole new can of worms.

      This really has nothing to do with the sex offender and Google reviews, but it does fit in with a spiritually abusive environment IMHO. A typical spiritual abusers will have a set of rules for others, but then changes them when it serves themselves. I believe this was one of those cases.



      Delete
    2. Thank you for your answer. BGBC has made these personal communications public and opened new insight into the institution and the man. If there were contrary teachings, leading to confusion, then I cannot believe the contention that you or Meaghan are the cause of all their woes.

      Delete
    3. You're welcome. And yet he is concerned that he didn't get his "day in court" because we subverted that process by filing the anti-SLAPP.

      Delete
  38. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous comments promoting the Impostor Site will be removed.

      Delete
    2. Good for you, Julie Anne.

      Delete
  39. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 18, 2012 at 4:03 PM

      Tonya needs to cut out the Christianese Buzzword Bingo. Who talks like that in the real world?

      Delete
    2. Don't worry, HUG, I know you weren't talking to yourself. This is the 2nd Impostor Troll comment I've had to remove today. When will they learn?

      Delete
    3. Headless Unicorn GuyDecember 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM

      I'm gonna have to phone my writing partner again for another sanity check. With the same question:

      "Did I just go Bats**t Crazy, or did everyone else?"

      Delete
    4. You are not going crazy, HUG. I am not going crazy. There are just crazy troll commenters who don't care about following rules. They follow their own set of rules.

      Delete
  40. So we see Chuck's attorney's summation of the DHS report, but not the actual DHS report. Not really evidence, just an opinion of the report by an attorney paid by Chuck. How do we really know what DHS records say Meaghan reported? Those who would justify Chuck's anger by this letter are still just taking Chuck's word for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You and I are in complete agreement on this. This is exactly why I told Chuck (on TWW blog) to show us the whole DHS page. Why show us just part of the page? Could it be he is hiding something? He ignored that comment. Ignoring is an active choice to not deal with an issue.

      He also ignored the multiple comments saying I would be willing to mediate. He has no desire to mediate anything. His desire is to control the flow of communication within his group and to feed them the information he wants them to hear (just like cult leaders do).

      There are discrepancies on the attorney's letter. It appears that the attorney only summarized Chuck's own words/claims. So what? He's been rambling on about being falsely accused of being a sexual abuser and yet what proof have we seen of any of this? In his own court declaration he states that I told him I was unaware of him being reported as a sexual abuser. That's what he came to my house for with the hidden recording device - to ask my knowledge of the DHS reporting. He's been aware of my knowledge of this long ago, yet keeps going on and on publicly that we are labeling HIM as an abuser. Nothing could be further than the truth. In our minds, this has never been about Chuck as an abuser. We do not believe it to be true. There is no court documentation ANYWHERE regarding Chuck being a sexual abuser. He "claims" it is in the DHS report, yet won't show us the full report. A snippet of a document? We need to see the full form. Besides that, we know it is completely against DHS policy and perhaps illegal to release information like this. I think he's creating his own chaos.

      Delete
    2. I looked at his site and read the newly added detail about the DHS report. I did not see what Chuck says is there. I see how he can turn it to make these things look like he is unjustly persecuted. I was present and observed some of the incidents surrounding these reports and I was concerned. The timing of the report does not bother me, nor do the "love" notes from Meaghan. What this comes down to, for me, is that when I weigh my experiences at BGBC with all concerned, I find Meaghan and Julie Anne to be the more trustworthy over pastor and co. Having been the subject of fact twisting,gossip and supposition there, I have to agree that he creates his own chaos.

      Delete
    3. I know many agree with your words, sleepy sheep. Thanks for your comment.

      Delete
  41. One thing I have noticed through viewing this blog is that many of Julie Ann's supporters seem to be ignorant of Proverbs 18:17.

    Julie Ann's pride flares up when she laughs about the other BGBC survivor blog mockingly joking about what did any of them have to survive?

    Well Julie Ann, because I am aware of Proverbs 18:17, I have read both survivor blogs, know full well both sides of the story, and have come to the conclusion that what the TRUE BGBC survivors had to survive is your deceitful tongue, your hypocritical nature, your slander, and your attempts to cause division in a good biblical Church. You laugh and mock as your haughtiness leads you to think that the poor souls who have suffered at your wicked and sinful hands see you as some force to be reckoned with, but in reality, the true force is the one behind you, the one working through you…he is the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), the father of lies (John 8:44), and you are merely his weapon of unrighteousness, nothing more.

    I remember some time back, when Julie Ann and company showed up at my Church. With forked tongues they attempted to manipulate my Pastor with their smooth talk and flattery (Rom 16:18). They approached him with much praise and adoration, speaking fluent Christianese in a ruse to win him over, but soon Julie Ann and company showed their true colors and started to gossip and slander Chuck O’Neal. I stood there, listening with amazement, at their utter lack of shame to act so unbiblical and be so blinded and self-deceived to think that they were actually in the right as they sinned openly in front of my Pastor and me. Thank God Almighty they never returned to my Church, but their impression they left made me want to dig further into the truth of this matter. I had never witnessed a person or group so intent on gossiping and slandering their old Church and Pastor, that I wanted to find out just what reason they had to act so openly wicked. Thankfully, my Pastor had the discernment to see through their smooth talk and flattery and warned our Church at the next Bible Study of these vicious ungodly people.

    Lastly, I wanted to point out the reasons I said you are a hypocrite and liar, because I don’t make false accusations as Julie Ann does. I have clearly shown in the above paragraph Julie Ann and company’s attempt to be divisive in the universal Church of Christ, so I can only imagine how extremely venomous and divisive you were when you were at BGBC. Julie Ann complains how unbiblical it was for Pastor O’Neal to bring her to court in a lawsuit, citing 1 Cor. 6:5-7, but did that verse at all enter you mind when your cohorts called Child Protective Services on Pastor O’Neal and made false claims of child abuse against him? Did you even consider the 9th Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”? or does your selfishness and need for vengeance know no bounds? Oh, but of course, Julie Ann will claim that it was not a false claim of child abuse…but even the unbelieving state government found the complaint to be false and found there to be absolutely no abuse, so yes Julie Ann, you and your co-conspirators did and have given false witness and thus sinned against God and Pastor O’Neal. That single fact alone exposes Julie Ann and company to be liars, hypocrites and slanderers. I could go on to site other instances, and other offenses but there is no need to beat a dead horse. I have clearly made my case…now comes the two important questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter Paul,

      I see you’ve clearly made your case... that is to say, you’ve clearly made your case against your own home church being a safe and sane House of the LORD. What’s the name of your church? I'd be curious to take a look at you.

      Delete
  42. Will Julie Ann have the integrity to actually leave my post on her website this time? Other posts I have attempted to leave have been deleted by the woman who claims to be so truthful and transparent, so, I of course, am inclined to believe that she will cowardly delete this post as well. Lastly, will Julie Ann and the one behind her, her father, the devil, do what they do best and seek vengeance against me and my church? Her track record tells me yes, but my guess is that Julie Ann has been so busy doing Satan’s work and sewing so many seeds of discord that she can’t even remember all the Churches she has attempted to slander Pastor O’Neal at.

    I will close in saying, that Christ said in Luke 6:28 to pray for those who mistreat you, and in 1 Peter 2:19-23 Scripture instructs us that it is commendable to God to bear up under unjust suffering and mistreatment. So tell me Julie Ann, since you claim to have been so mistreated, why is it that you have attempted to wage this war of slander, gossip and divisiveness, instead of quietly (1 Pet 3:3-4) bearing up just as Christ did, and to pray for Pastor O’Neal? Anyone with a smidge of biblical knowledge and discernment can tell exactly who and what you are Julie Ann, that is why you have no godly allies, such as the men at Grace, down in California.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pardon me - I was not aware when I responded to you on TWW, that you had actually commented here. Perhaps we were posting at the same time. I will repost what I said on TWW:


      Hmm, Solid Brother, were you posting on the correct blog? The only comments I’ve removed in the past week have been Anonymous advertisements for the Impostor Blog which I said up front I would be removing. You must have spent a considerable amount of time concocting such a story, but your choice of word phrases gives you away as an O’Neal follower (deceitful tongue, attempts to cause division, weapon of unrighteousness, smooth talk and flattery, Julie Ann and company, sewing so many seeds of discord). I give you an A+ for effort, but overall, you failed with me. Someone else may be able to be convinced, who knows.


      PS – You’d get more credibility from me (even as a naysayer) if you’d spelled my name correctly. Julie Anne (with an E).

      Delete
    2. Oops, my apologies, Peter Paul. I just realized I forgot to change your name in my response to you. Obviously, I copied and pasted my response from TWW here and failed to exchange the "Solid Brother" to Peter Paul.

      Delete
    3. Peter Paul said: Anyone with a smidge of biblical knowledge and discernment can tell exactly who and what you are Julie Ann, that is why you have no godly allies, such as the men at Grace, down in California.

      So, the implication is that a godly ally must be a man? Wow. Just wow.

      Delete
    4. To Peter Paul or Solid Brother,

      Just to be clear, the context for 1 Peter 2 is Living Godly Lives in a Pagan Society.

      11 “Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.”

      The 1 Peter 3:3-4 passage refers to how believing wives should behave especially around an unbelieving husband.

      One fails to get the connection that Julie Anne should have with either of these passages.

      How one bears up in being truly ‘persecuted for Christ’ in a pagan society and being sued by their former pastor in America are clearly two different contexts, wouldn’t you say?!

      Delete
    5. “The first one to plead his cause seems right,
      Until his neighbor comes and examines him.” Proverbs 18:17

      Peter Paul excellent comment! I believe Proverbs 18:17 sums the situation up. Sounds like Julie Anne and her “followers” are also described in 2 Timothy 3… proud, unloving, slanderers, haughty, lovers of pleasure (or in this case - lover of her 15 minutes of fame) …to name a few.

      I followed this blog for awhile, and to be honest it became tiresome. Same thing different day. Much whining, gossip, and speculation against churches, pastors, etc. Julie Anne reminds me of “Peter and the Wolf”. She stands on a mountain side bored and wanting attention, so she cries, “Wolf! Wolf!” so people will take notice and come running. Sadly for you Julie Anne… we know how the tale ends.

      I’d also like to make an observation… I've noticed time and time again Julie Anne getting all worked up over her name. Call her ‘Julie’ or ‘Julie Ann’ and she gets all ruffled over it. Seriously? And lately she’s also complaining over her blog name being stolen. Really? If that’s all it takes to get under this woman’s skin my sympathies lie with Pastor O’Neal. Can you imagine what it must have been like… I mean, were the pews at BGBC straight enough for you?! I’m sorry, but can anyone say Proverbs 21:19? “Better to dwell in the wilderness, Than with a contentious and angry woman.” Wow.

      Now that the truth is out about this situation, you should get a new “hobby” Julie Anne.

      Delete
    6. Bluebird, I am pretty sure if you never visit this site again your comments won't be missed. But as far as this not being a popular blog, over 300,000 hits in less than a year tells somewhat a different story. A blog devoted to expose and discuss spiritual abuse is naturally going to draw some negative reviews, thus people like yourself. If there were not people like yourself and Chuck, there would be no spiritual abuse, thus no need for blog like Julie Anne's.

      And as far as her name, at least she has the courage to use her own name and not coward behind a name like bluebird. In fact you should be thanking Julie Anne for the work she is doing. I am sure you have no trouble finding a good parking place at BGBC, and if you come to the service late you can still get a front row seat. If you not a member of BGBC, you should be, you and Chuck have much in common.

      Raymond

      Delete
    7. Check your facts BlueBird- My mother didn't say Chuck "stole" her blog name - that was a quote from my dad. Do a simple word search on this page and you'll find the only two times that word is used is when she referenced what he said and then your comment. The similar name tactic is something that is a common "phishing" tactic... create a website with a similar name and try to redirect traffic from the one you're trying to attack.

      Delete
    8. Ahhh Raymond, we are truly living in the days where people would much rather hear pleasant words and not the truth, eh? Just like in the days of Isaiah… "You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions.” (Isaiah 30:10) Also 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” Julie Anne does love her fables.

      Have you ever considered that many of those 300,000 hits are from the poor people at BGBC looking to see what fables Julie Anne has concocted lately about them? It’s not like this blog has 300,000 avid followers waiting and drooling over Julie’s every word.

      I wouldn't call my comment a “negative review” but rather a differing view than yours. One that enjoys engaging in thinking for myself, looking at both sides of the story and making an educated decision based on facts. Not on speculation, ponderings and the ever vacillating emotions of people.

      And as far as my name, call me a coward to your heart’s desire… but I have read what Julie Anne and her friends have done to the families at BGBC. Would anyone in their right mind want to give Julie and her “followers” access to their family? I think not. I have children at home to protect.

      Lastly, I see you are now coming out with your true intentions for BGBC, your desire to clear out the church. Wonder what God will think of your goal to destroy this church? Well, one thing for sure, it’s nice to see a little truth out of you guys for a change.

      Delete
    9. O this is funny!

      Hey BlueBeard, or should i say Mr Weaver!

      Your foible is a confusion of fables.

      Do you really know the end of the ”Peter and the Wolf” story?

      Is Peter likened here to Julie Anne who traps a wolf with a bird in its belly and then convinces the hunters to put it on display?

      I know, I know you meant to cite The Boy Who Cried “Wolf”, right?

      But let me tell you the Julie Anne wolf-story.

      here goes:

      The shepherdess who cried ‘wolf!’

      Once there was a Oregonian Shepherdess who cried ‘wolf!’

      All the hillside shepherds came and examined the situation and proclaimed ‘not so.’

      Shortly thereafter the shepherdess once again and even louder cried ‘wolf!’ and her cry was heard as far as California. The shepherds on hearing her cry (shepherds who were either wolves themselves or mind controlled sheep playing their roles) determined once again that no wolves were threatening the flock or the shepherdess.

      When the wolves came against her again to snuff the Shepherdess out her cry was heard around the globe and rams and true shepherds came running to defend the Shepherdess and the flock from the ravenous schemes of the wolves.

      The global attention contained these wolves in a zoo, encased them under the glass of the world wide web for all to see the truth.



      Delete
    10. Bluebird, reading your comments really don't make sense. You bash Julie Anne's blog in your first post.

      "I followed this blog for awhile, and to be honest it became tiresome. Same thing different day. Much whining, gossip, and speculation against churches, pastors, etc. Julie Anne reminds me of “Peter and the Wolf”. She stands on a mountain side bored and wanting attention, so she cries, “Wolf! Wolf!” so people will take notice and come running. Sadly for you Julie Anne… we know how the tale ends."

      Then you come back and act like you're some kind of neutral observer trying to just get both sides of the story. By the way Peter, was not the the character that yelled "wolf wolf", I think in that fable the character's name was Chuck, but I am not sure.

      "I wouldn't call my comment a “negative review” but rather a differing view than yours. One that enjoys engaging in thinking for myself, looking at both sides of the story and making an educated decision based on facts. Not on speculation, ponderings and the ever vacillating emotions of people."

      Why do you people continue to waste your time and energy and money trying to defend something that really nobody cares about but your Pastor? Since Chuck's blog has been posted, there have been a total of 81 comments posted by a total of 20 people, 5 which have a last name of O'Neal, and from reading most all the comments, I think I am safe to say all but maybe one attends BGBC. I don't know what the total number in the congregation is, but only having 15 comments on such a life and death situation for the church would really concern me. I am sure there were plenty of other comments that didn't get posted - if I had to guess that number would be more than the 81. Julie Anne's blog and the TWW had a total of 482 comments from 99 different people. And Chuck and his family was allowed to make 11 comments. And Julie Anne and the TWW are not representing a church. (In fact I live 2,500 miles away). And I don't recall seeing Julie Anne or Meaghan's comments posted on Chuck's blog even once. Now come on bluebird, you don't have to be very smart to see that Chuck is wasting his time and his church's resources and Internet space to prove what?

      And if you are baiting waiting for a response from Julie Anne, I heard she don't like Bluebirds, because they are very territorial and sit on your car mirror and try to beat up an image of itself. They are not smart enough to know neither of the birds are going to win the fight. She also said she don't like bluebirds because they crap on her window trying to beat the crap out of their own reflection. She wouldn't care if the bluebird never comes back, it makes too much of a mess.

      Raymond

      Delete
    11. Raymond:

      #1: Did you really go to TWW and Impostor Blog and my blog and count comments/posts? This cracks me up.

      #2: I'm wondering what Kool-Aid you've been drinking because I don't ever recall having a conversation with you about bluebirds. I don't know a thing about bluebirds. Your story was quite humorous, though. Thanks for the education and laugh.

      #3: I do hate bird poop.

      #4: You made excellent points even if you went to crazy feats in doing your fact gathering.

      Delete
    12. Raymond,

      Your comments were insightful and delightful!! You are one who knows and understands! Thanks for taking the time to be the bean counter and draw comparisons. Thanks for the bird identification study--that is 'for the birds'! Well done. Smiling from here. :)

      Delete
    13. Raymond. Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

      Delete
    14. Queen of Hearts - And deprive us of all of his great insight? Nah - keep counting, Raymond.

      Delete
    15. More blog stats for Raymond: This post is in 7th place for # of hits. It's 2nd place for # of comments. I think if the Impostor Site would allow negative comments, they'd get more traffic :) Look how many comments Bluebird and Peter Paul, Anonymous, etc, generated.

      Delete
    16. anybody ever see the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate?

      Queen of Hearts is quoting a famous line from it

      Delete
    17. Monax, my bad. I did indeed mean “The Boy who Cried Wolf”, but see… you still knew what I meant even though I had the title wrong.

      Lol, sorry but the joke is on you. I am BlueBIRD, not BlueBEARD, and therefore not Mr. Weaver, who I believe is the Elder of BGBC… but thank you for the compliment! I will tell you I am a wife and mother, but alas, cannot give you any more information because of the whole ‘protecting my family from you people’ thing.

      Kudos to you monax for knowing your fables. Well done. And you taking the time to compose a “story” explains a lot about your friendship with Julie Anne as she enjoys concocting fables too, as I have mentioned before. Unfortunately though, it doesn’t appear you know your Bible as well. Calling Julie Anne a “shepherdess” is so unbiblical I am squirming for you. I would hate to explain that on judgment day. God makes it perfectly clear in the Bible the way His church is to be run, and having a woman in a place of authority is not it. “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12) Does this make me or any other woman “less than”? Absolutely not! I, in no way, feel inferior to hear and obey God’s holy design. I know that my role as wife, mother, keeper of the home is most important. And I am blessed to embrace it along with all the other tasks God brings about for me to take on… all the while knowing that there are some roles I am not designed for. Phew! I don’t have to do it all! God has appointed and qualified the men He has called, Elders and Deacons, to watch over flocks. And, in my life, given me a husband to lead my home.

      You’re right, there is truth out about the Julie Anne vs. BGBC situation on the internet… however, there’s not much truth of it here on this blog.

      Delete
    18. Bluebird: Did you, as a woman, just publicly rebuke monax, a man? Were you trying to teach him 1 Tim 2:12? Whoa.

      Maybe we should be "squirming for you"?

      signed,
      JA, aka as "shepherdess" to monax

      Delete
    19. Raymond… miss me? Seriously though, I could probably come up with little quips about your name, or perhaps I could ponder where the name “monax” came from and how odd it sounds… or maybe I’ll just be an adult about it and focus on the things that matter. Like this whole thing was never about one negative review left on google, was it? Looks more like the biggest grudge I've ever witnessed, blogged about day and night by a prideful hypocrite and liar (borrowing Peter Paul’s words there because he made an excellent case) with nothing better to do than to scoff at other’s people’s pain.

      I also see that you and Julie have been busy counting comments, hits and commenters. How adorable. I didn't realize this was a high school popularity contest. But really, you guys make it too easy…. I mentioned before that Julie and crew were proud, unloving, slanderers, haughty, lovers of pleasure (or in this case - lover of her 15 minutes of fame)… So thank you for proving my point! Your focus on numbers and popularity rather than the facts, illustrates exactly what I was talking about.
      Question for you… if a person is wrong, but has 99 different people siding with her, does it somehow make her right? No, because truth is truth. And fable, no matter how compelling -- and even if there are a bunch of people buying it and re-shoveling it –- is still just a made-up tall tale. Sorry guys.

      One final thought... if someone was running to different churches spreading lies about me, blogging non-stop nastiness about me, calling DHS and lying about me.... I would absolutely start my own blog to set the record straight about myself and my family. And no one in their right mind would call that a waste of time.

      Delete
    20. BlueBird, I have some words of encouragement for you....


      Thanks for taking time to read them!

      Delete
    21. BlueBird, my calling you BlueBeard was intentional on a number of levels.

      I'm curious, did you maybe slightly get “worked up” and “ruffled” over my getting your name wrong? =]

      Fwiw, there is a blue bird in the Peter and the Wolf story. The blue bird is an ally of Peter and helps him catch the wolf.

      Bluebeard, on the other hand, is a monstrous character from french folklore.

      I called you Mr Weaver, cause that’s who you sound like. In fact, you all sound like a bunch of Chucks—mean, legalistic and graceless.

      You write: Calling Julie Anne a “shepherdess” is so unbiblical I am squirming for you. I would hate to explain that on judgment day. God makes it perfectly clear in the Bible the way His church is to be run, and having a woman in a place of authority is not it. “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

      What I appreciate in your comment here is your passionate embracing of Scripture as our final authority for faith and practice. I also agree that God has made it perfectly clear that women are not permitted to teach or to have authority over men. Yes, dear, I believe Scripture is quite clear on this.

      But where does it say that a woman is not to be a teacher or a pastor? In the church there are many highly gifted women who God has called to pastor and to teach. They serve in the body in positions that no men can fill. A woman who is a pastor or teacher to other women or children is not disobeying any Scriptural directives.

      Please know, BlueBird, even you, as you are in Christ—you are a woman called to great spiritual authority. What grants us this authority? For one, we’re seated with Christ at the right hand of our heavenly Father. Obedience grants authority. Love grants authority. Knowing whose you are and how to wield the Sword of Truth grants great authority. With the authority you have in Christ you can crush serpents and scorpions.

      It's true.

      Bless you, BlueBird, Bless you!

      Delete
  43. They have ministered to the wound of my daughter with disdain.

    They cry "grace, grace" but there is no grace.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi Julie Anne,

    Solid Bro from TWW referenced Proverbs 18:17, which I think is FUNNY, since he disobeys God's Law (Leviticus 19:18) as a so called man of the cloth.

    Proverbs 18:17, huh? “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right,
    until someone comes forward and cross-examines.”

    Since Chuck brought the lawsuit, he was the first to speak.

    The judge wasn’t gonna have any of it. The judge already told Chuckles that he has no standing, no merit. In other words, Chuckles, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

    Besides, who really cares who called CPS on Chuckles? BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY!! If I was falsely accused of something that I did not do, WHO CARES? Dust your feet and move on. Why all this nonsense of the fake and phoney tears from the Chuckles family, with all of their “woe is us” sympathy seekers?

    Leviticus 19:18
    “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”

    THAT IS GOD’S LAW, CHUCKLES!!!! YOU ARE DISOBEYING GOD’S LAW, AS A MAN OF THE CLOTH, YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE WORDS GRACE AND MERCY.

    Ed Chapman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed: Congratulations - With your comment you made this the most commented post in history here. And what a comment! I am going to take my laptop off my lap, stand and salute you for the comment of the day! haha :) And I concur with 100% of it.

      I've missed your face around here lately! Good to "see" you again, Ed.

      Delete
    2. Wow, what an honor. I was once in the Navy for quite a few years, and no one saluted me. Yes, I have been on hiatus for a bit. I have had some family issues that I have been dealing with, as well as working a lot, and it hasn't afforded the time to blog lately. I was just thinking about your blog earlier, and when I logged in, I was surprised to see that Chuck was back at his old tricks again. He is still accusing you of a CRIMINAL act. But yet, he took you to civil court. I know the difference between those two words. Someone needs to teach Chuck the difference. Criminal (JAIL) vs. CIVIL (Money).

      Delete
    3. There does seem to be some confusion. I'll exercise great restraint and leave it at that. :)

      Delete
  45. The beautiful thing about Chuck's new blog is him and all the people who respond incriminate themselves. After reading about how "shunning" is a part of church discipline WHO WOULD EVER WANT TO JOIN THEM? Basically, Chuck guaranteed permanent stunting of his church's growth. I don't go to church, but if I ever started again, I certainly wouldn't go to one where a pastor has dedicated an entire website to defending himself. What a tool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Melissa - BTW, Are you the same Melissa who commented on TWW? It really is puzzling how he thinks this is going to help his cause. It is the most blatant way to scare people away from church entirely. His blog, the business cards, etc - - they are pushing people AWAY from Christ. He prides himself on knowing the best ways of evangelizing, but this is anti-evangelizing. Who wants to go to their parked car and see the blatherings of a disgruntled pastor? It's bizarre behavior.

      Delete
    2. Yes, 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: "chuckoneal@cleaninter.net"
      Subject:


      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, chuckoneal@cleaninter.net wrote:

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

      BEAVERTON GRACE BIBLE CHURCH
      PRESS RELEASE

      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: "chuckoneal@cleaninter.net"
      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

      _

      Delete
    3. Continued:


      ________________________


      From: "chuckoneal@cleaninter.net"
      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:

      http://www.*********.org/m******************************-family/#comment-184

      http://www.*********.org/wh****************is-site/

      http://www.*********org/a-***************a/

      http://www.********.org/defen*************rough-legal-means/

      Thank you for your kind email and prayers!

      For Christ and His Church,

      Chuck O'Neal, Pastor BGBC



      ________________________________


      Re: RE:
      Hide Details

      From

      Melissa Fletcher

      To

      chuckoneal@cleaninter.net

      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.

      Delete
    4. Melissa: When you get a chance, can you please send me a copy of of the above: bgbcsurvivors@gmail.com

      Thank you!

      JA

      Delete

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.