Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The BGBC Google Review Soap Opera

Some readers have been watching the Google reviews on my former church and sometimes give me a "heads up" if they notice new or strange activity.  I guess it's like a form of warped entertainment?   haha   Pass the bon bons, I've got on my loungewear, let's go.  Anyway, I've had a few laughs at the ongoing changes.

Google has changed their rating system a bit.  I notice reviews are disappearing.  At one point there were over 960 or so reviews - keep in mind most of those were from the Streisand effect from the media attention - people who had never visited the church wanted to get their $.02 in about a pastor who suesd mothers and their adult children.  Now there are 678 total reviews.   I grabbed the screen shot of the Google page above because it has changed so much.  I wonder how many man-hours Google staff has wasted dealing with the reviews from my former church?  

Someone notified me that Hannah's (my adult daughter and former defendant in the lawsuit) review was missing.  I checked and also asked another friend to check and we could not find her review.  She had updated it after our court victory back in late July.  Why did Google remove it?  Did someone flag it?  A couple days later, it returned.  Strange happenings!

One other thing - I cannot find my review anywhere!  What's up with that?  I won the court case and my review should be there.   So, should I do a new review?  hmmm . . . . decisions . . . . 

Peppermint Patty is a current member at the church and it looks like she revised her review within the last week:

I have a few comments to make about Patty's review.  We see right away that she also calls people who left reviews, "God-haters".  That is pretty judgmental.  As discussed in an earlier post, I counted "hate" seven times in current church member Liz's old review (pictured below).  The way Liz and Patty use this "hate" word makes me think this phrase is commonly used, especially in reference to former church members.  Ouch!  I don't consider the word "God-hating" to be very kind or loving; yet, they try to convince us in their reviews that they are a Christ-honoring congregation committed to reach the lost.  I wonder how the "lost" would feel if they knew of this kind of talk among this "Christ-honoring" congregation.  

Secondly, it appears that Patty is reprimanding the large amount of people who left negative reviews and who never attended the church.  Well, that's very interesting.  Patty didn't seem to mind when her own pastor along with other members used the Google review forum to review ME!!!  My name is and was never up for review.  Have they, too,  violated Google's review policy?  Maybe so.  I haven't checked, but it makes no sense to allow reviews to be posted that aren't reviewing the business in question (oh, and of course they rated their review of ME as 5 stars so as not to sabotage their own church's rating - - I don't think the 5 stars was because they really like me - BOO!)   

Finally, I noticed that Liz has a new and improved review posted.  This is the 3rd review that I have been able to get a screen shot of.  I missed one.  Anyway, I thought it would be fun to do a little comparison.  It's a lot more fun analyzing Google reviews than discussing sexual abuse, spiritual abuse, and spousal abuse, isn't it?   Well, I need the diversion, so here goes:

Just eight days ago, on October 15, I posted about the following in a blog post:

The above review "mysteriously" disappeared after my post drawing attention to it.  Funny how that works.  (We noticed similar patterns at the church website, too.)   Liz then posted another review, but I didn't get a screen shot of it.  The following review (3rd review) is posted below.  I think it remained online maybe 1 or 2 days before it, too, disappeared.

And finally, today I noticed this new review was posted.  I don't know when it was originally posted as I don't check Google reviews daily.  Anyway, if you've been counting along with me, we are up to 4 review revisions in 8 days by Liz.  Has the church really changed that much in 8 days?  Probably not.

Look how much it has changed! The latest Google review entry is quite short and apparently Liz has added a fan - now 4 out of 30 people found her review helpful.   I wonder what tomorrow brings on:  As the Google Review World Turns.   

I'll be sure to keep you updated.  If you have any observations on the reviews, I'd love to read your conclusions.  My readers are usually quite sharp!


  1. So I'm genuinely confused reading the new reviews. In more than one version, Liz appears to refer to the lawsuit as if it was a lawsuit *against* the church, and that it was a good thing that it was thrown out. Am I the only one seeing this as revisionist history? Or has it just been a long day and that's not what is there in black and white (whichever version you read)...

    1. Hey Helltygr - Nope, you are not the only one seeing this! It sure seems like she's implying someone on the outside (like me or others) filed the "unfortunate lawsuit" against the church. What flavor Kool-Aid is she drinking? Thankfully if you do a Google Search on the church's name, the news stories are front and center on the first Google page - all showing that HER pastor initiated the foolish lawsuit. If I were her, I would ask where her tithes are going.

      She can revise her review all she wants, but as long as there are "spies" who get entertained by church members who revise Google Reviews (and send me screen shots), I will be there to report about it. Darn Free Speech.

  2. Oh how tiring it must be to be so ever vigilant about looking good.

  3. This is just a guess, but... Your acquaintance Liz may have read your previous post on this topic. In her revised review, she seems to consciously avoid the word 'hate'. Almost every instance of that word in her first review is replaced by another in her revision (e.g. 'execrable', 'abhor'). I'm guessing she read your observations about her overuse of 'hate', and edited her work to take that weapon out of your hand (so to speak). Not that her message is really different now. Or any more persuasive, either.

    And regarding her general tone: Can everyone say, "persecution complex"? ;)

    1. I'm sure she did read my previous post - - I noticed the exchange of hate words. Changing the word does not change the message. About the persecution complex - - - again, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. This was the tone of most of the messages. I don't ever remember leaving feeling victorious in Christ or that his grace was sufficient for me. It was about my sin and wars/battles we fight as Christians, questioning your salvation, etc.

  4. BGBC is despicable and they are playing Google games.

  5. Replies
    1. Elisha !!!

      ... that's the right retort to your tort, isn't it?

    2. It's been a while since we've seen a Jezebel comment.

    3. But I did have the right retort, right?

      Or did "Anonymous 12:23" mean someone other than you? Yeah, maybe that's the ticket.

    4. I wish I had all of the answers, Brad. These anonymous posters sure make blogging . . . . interesting. I liked your retort to the tort.

    5. Ahab! Shammuah! Gomer! Hepzibah!

      What? I thought we were just throwing out funny names from the Bible!

    6. Great contributions, Kathi. My mom used to ask me multiple times what I was going to name a baby when I was pregnant. One time I told her "Jemima Jean" JJ for short. I told her we wanted a biblical name and I think because I said "biblical" she didn't know what to do with that and just let it go without asking again - hahaha. I'm such a brat.

      How 'bout Dorcas? Imagine the teasing that name would cause today!

    7. You seem to have a hard time moving on. Why don't you leave that congregation in peace. What harm are they causing you? You are starting to look like the abuser that themes your crusade.

    8. Anon at 5:44, I assume then if you saw two people in an alley beating up a third person, you'd walk on by? After all, what harm are they causing you?

      I'm sorry to be so blunt. I know it's hard for you to see the point when you are in that church or in a similar situation. When a person is being abused, they often identify with and defend their abuser. It's common. I would suggest you seek professional help or at least an outside, unbiased supporter. People in a congregation like Beaverton's are not at peace. The very opposite.

    9. Anonymous 5:44 - -Thanks for stopping by. I can understand why you think I haven't moved on. I think I have.

      One important thing I do here is highlight patterns/behaviors in abusive churches. It is not normal behavior current church members to leave a review, change it over and over again, reviewing me, reprimanding others who leave negative reviews. What we are seeing is the "fruit" of that church. This behavior is also similar to the stalking behavior (Facebook, Twitter) some have experienced.

      I am having a little fun with it, though, because it is so ridiculous and is a diversion - - - and it gives me an excuse to eat bon bons rather than think about recent stories of children who were sexually abused and church leaders who failed them.

    10. It looks like the church members are conducting a defense of sorts. Trying to out review you. I really cannot find fault with them and their self-defense efforts. Anyone with their backs in a corner and suffering a contant barrage will seek to defend themselves.

      I am simply pointing out that you did your damage and you should move on.

      To Jackie, I am not trying to be smart, but you write as if there is some sort of physical abuse going on. From what I know, this church has a sanctuary and maybe another small building or two. It does not look like some sort of complex that one might read of where all night brain washing occurs.

      I might need some professional help for many things. I do not believe that I need help with common sense and discernment. Your slant remark "professional help" might be construed as offensive and abusive at the same level as BGBC leadership is accused of. I think it is simply a sophmoric attempt to get a rise.

      I really do not see any difference between what you are doing, Julie, compared to what you accuse BGBC of. From what I have read, this whole matter is spawned from a personnel disagreement or a schism ploy that was uncovered and dealt with. You certainly are not without fault to say the very least.

  6. Headless Unicorn GuyOctober 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

    The above review "mysteriously" disappeared after my post drawing attention to it. Funny how that works. (We noticed similar patterns at the church website, too.)

    doubleplusungood doubleplusunevents.
    doubleplusungood doubleplusunpersons.
    doubleplusungood doubleplusunreviews.

  7. Julie Anne, that third review was not written completely by the same person who wrote the first two. There's help there. And they did pick up on the hate word quickly and change it. Someone's definitely watching this site, which is a good thing. Someone's eyes may be opened.

    Keep up your wonderful ministry. Since being led to your site from a news site this last spring, I have followed links here and discovered a whole world of spiritual abuse I did not know existed. I didn't even know about the whole quiverfull/patriarchal movement. I thought the Duggars (don't watch the show) were just a family that liked having a lot of kids and had a good cheap recipe for laundry detergent.

    Knowledge is power.

    1. Thank you so much, Jackie. I'm glad to know you have learned from this site. That makes two of us because I tell you what - - - my readers have taught me a lot through their varying experiences.

      And I agree with you that someone is watching this site. They have been watching all along just as they have been watching the Google reviews all along. It is my prayer that they will see the truth.

    2. Liz, Chuck and others need to read and understand this scripture and know that it was written for a reason. Proverbs 25:8-9

      Do not go hastily to court;
      For what will you do in the end,
      When your neighbor has put you to shame?
      9 Debate your case with your neighbor,
      And do not disclose the secret to another;
      10 Lest he who hears it expose your shame,
      And your reputation be ruined.

    3. Good words in that Proverb, Raymond. Thank you. I think my former pastor would say that he did not go "hastily" to court - meaning in length of time because he waited years before filing the lawsuit. But I believe he did go hastily - - - he avoided any normal and reasonable communication in trying to get to a resolution. His actions prove that he did not want resolution at all.

  8. We saw the same thing at calvarychapelabuse.com Every time we would write a review, a few diehard Koolaid drinkers would come along and write 3 saying how wonderful it was. The funny thing is, all those people have now been at the stinky end of the Predator Pastor's beating stick. I think they would all retract their reviews if they could.

    Some of our biggest enemies have become some of our best friends and trustworthy allies. That's the constant in churches ran by evil men, they will eventually burn everyone around them, including the inner circle.

    1. And I'll bet you never wavered in your love for those Saints who at one time were deceived, Not Alone. The discovery process is sometimes long, but oh so sweet when those relationships are restored. It's so sad when people are burned in the process.

    2. Oh I wavered a few times ;)

  9. Whats an abominater-blog? Is that like the Abominable Snowman? Is the Abominable Snowman blogging and no one told me about it???


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.