Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Showing posts with label Defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defamation. Show all posts

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Nicene Creed as "Complete Fairy Tale?"

Following a study of Jeremiah recently, we've begun to think about the subject of theological "defamation, deceit, distortion, distraction and dismissal."  Such mental (epistemological), moral (ethics), aesthetic (affections) and volitional (choices) cut across all socio-economic, socio-political and religious classes in Jeremiah's time.  Corrupt doctrine, thinking, teachers, and people--disabled and utterly disoriented and deceived is a theme in Jeremiah.  Here's Byran Owen's post in behalf and in favour of the Nicene Creed, the historic Anglican perspective.  Of course, many (majority?) of self-identifying Christians would know few of these things, although the implications are substantial, significant and important.  Nicene Churchmanship prevailed in the East, Western Romanism, and classical Protestant faiths--Anabaptistic, Pentecostalist and other tub-thumping revivalists excluded. (Bryan is a TEC Rector in Jackson, MS.)

http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-truth-about-council-of-nicaea.html

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea

According to pop culture accounts, the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) made up a new version of Christianity that includes the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. And the Council also gave orthodox bishops absolute political power to stamp out rival, more tolerant followers of Jesus. The subtext, of course, is that orthodox Christianity is bad if not evil. And its core doctrine is false because it was the byproduct of efforts to consolidate political power and control.

According to the following video, this view of the Council of Nicaea is "a complete fairy tale" grounded in a lack of historical evidence. The video is a good antidote to some of the anti-Christian, "let's make up our own religion" hype out there, so watch it all:



Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Rev. O'Neal's Defamation Lawsuit & Developments

             Dee at The Wartburg Watch continues to follow the story of the Oregon pastor filing a defamation claim against a former parishioner.  Here’s Dee at:  http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/05/16/pastor-chuck-oneal-the-blogger-phil-johnson-and-overuse-of-slander/.  
         Unlike Dee, unlike Phil Johnson, and unlike MacArthur, we do believe there is a progeny of rulings that may warrant application here.  We need much more information.
       To wit, what are the facts of this case?  What are the legal issues?  Based upon the factual pattern, relevant laws, and relevant rulings, what is actionable?  What is a considered opinion of the law? 
       Defamation laws have their place and purpose.  We have those laws for a purpose.  What do these bloggers and Pastors know about these laws?  The questions continue. Thanks Dee for following this.

Pastor Chuck O’Neal, The Blogger, Phil Johnson and Overuse of “Slander”

Wed, May 16 2012
By dee

I apologize for the disjointed nature of this post. There are several competing stories within this thread and I will do my best to integrate them.

Press Release From Pastor Chuck O’Neal

At 11AM EST, The Wartburg Watch received a press release from Pastor Chuck O’Neal. I asked permission to reprint it in part since it is quite lengthy. However, he asked that it be printed in full. So, we have created a separate page at TWW and will provide the link to it at the end of the following excerpt.

To preface the release he wrote, “Things are not always what they first seem to be. Here is a small portion of the rest of the story.”

"There is another side to the story. Beaverton Grace Bible Church wants to present its side of the story before anyone rushes to judgment. In Nov of 2008 a man was removed from the staff of Beaverton Grace Bible Church (BGBC). Since that time, Pastor Charles O’Neal and the Beaverton Grace Bible Church have been the targets of a three and a half year campaign of defamation by a group of former church members and attenders who are close personal friends of the former staff member. The church elders and the pastor did little to defend themselves over these three and a half years, believing that the individuals would tire of the effort and eventually cease the defamation.

However, that did not prove to be successful. In fact it was counter-productive. The defamation campaign escalated recently when one of the former congregants established a blog on the internet with the intent of reaching a broader audience. This divisive group has used review websites, blogs, the police, the Department of Human Services, and now the local media in their three and a half year campaign to destroy Pastor O’Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church with false accusations that range from ridiculous to criminal.

The facts will show that this is not a free speech case. Just after the release of the before mentioned staff member, in Dec. of 2008, a member of this group called the police and the DHS to deliver a false report accusing Pastor O’Neal of physically abusing his own children and allowing pornography to be distributed to adolescents in the church. He, his family, and the church were subsequently investigated by the authorities and the case was dismissed as unfounded. His only response to these vicious charges was to state his own denial. As the campaign has escalated the postings on the internet have falsely accused Pastor O’Neal of being a “wolf,” a “liar,” a” narcissist” and one who “knew about a sex offender in the church who had access to the nursery and the children on a weekly basis and did not have any safeguards in place.” In yet further escalation, Julie Anne Smith stated that the church allows “sex offenders having free reign in childrens’ area with no discloser to parents…”  This is most likely the second worst thing that can be said about a pastor and a church and most certainly constitutes defamation.

Continue the full press release at this link.

Phil Johnson, John MacArthur and Grace Community Church

Phil and I had a series of respectful emails regarding GCC’s involvement in this now international story. I want to stress something. Phil was courteous and open with me. I even tweeked him by referring to myself as a “discernment diva.”(I couldn’t resist ☺) He didn’t bite and continued to address the situation at hand. Frankly, I was surprised by the open nature of our communication. I know that he and I will not see eye to eye on a number of theological issues but, in this instance, at least, I believe that he tried to explain a difficult situation with kindness and without pulling any punches.

I asked permission to post the emails and he gave me permission to print the following. He said that if I wished to print more, to let him know and he felt that he would approve any request on my part. However, I think the excerpt is enough.

"Chuck O’Neal did phone me this morning and we talked for more than an hour. . .

Here’s my summary of Pastor O’Neal’s side of the story: He says he was accused of many things over several years’ time—including child molestation and other gross crimes. At one point the police actually came to his door and questioned him about the abuse charges. They launched an investigation that included state-ordered medical examinations of his children. He was cleared of all those accusations by this investigation, but his wife was terrorized by it, so he began to seek advice from other pastors on how to respond. That prompted his call to Grace Community Church, in which he was put in touch with the only responsible staff member who was available at that moment to take a random call. That staff member is not an elder but is a generally knowledgeable and trustworthy counselor. (I’m not going to name him, but he is a tenderhearted shepherd . . .).

Pastor O’Neal says he doesn’t remember the exact language the counselor used, but he says one of the suggestions the counselor made was that he should see a lawyer to explore his legal options. He took that as tacit approval that a lawsuit might not be out of the question. That started the process.

Around March of this year [one of our elders] learned of the situation somehow and encouraged both Pastor O’Neal and his accusers to resolve the matter without going to court. My understanding is that [the elder] spoke to all parties and concluded that both sides needed to yield somewhat. He encouraged Pastor O’Neal to withdraw the lawsuit and his accusers to withdraw some of the material they had posted online. Bill says neither side budged but simply dug in with even more firmly adversarial positions.

Pastor O’Neal acknowledges that it was clear to him after talking with Bill that our elders were basically opposed to the lawsuit (especially the request for monetary damages), but by then his own study of 1 Corinthians 6 had convinced him that there are “loopholes” permitting Christians to file lawsuits in certain extreme situations. He was convinced his situation is one of those exceptional cases. He seems to have correctly understood that [the elder from Grace] did not share his perspective on that, but he says he thought [our elders weren’t] taking a hard-line stance—as if [we] regarded his opinion as a matter of preference rather than a biblical position.

Anyway, Pastor O’Neal did not have Grace Church’s encouragement to sue and he understood that.

Could Grace Church have given better, clearer counsel in this case? In my opinion, yes. The initial counsel given was almost certainly too ambiguous and not emphatic enough. (The fact that even Pastor O’Neal doesn’t recall precisely what the counselor said is sufficient proof of that).

I reaffirmed our official position with Pastor O’Neal this morning: We believe the course of action he has chosen is wrong and that he should drop the lawsuit, even if every claim his accusers make is false and everything he says they have done to him is true.”

Last night, before a meeting, I sent Phil the following email.

“There have been a number of comments, both on our blog and others, that state that Grace has not expressed concern for the blogger involved. There is a perception that the major concern is for the pastor and that his concerns and statements take precedence over the woman involved. Frankly, that has been my perception as well. Do not forget, this was one of those situations in which a church wide shunning was involved.

I believe it would go a long way for the church to express God's love and concern for BOTH parties to this lawsuit. If not, as the media continues to escalate this, it could come across that Grace is part of a good old boy network and that the pastor is king and that a church member is expendable.”

Surprisingly, Phil beat me to the punch. As I was sending that email, he was involved in a lengthy telephone conversation with Julie Anne. She found that he was sympathetic and concerned about her side of the story. For that, I am grateful. Julie Anne is under a lot of pressure and I am appreciative that he was able to allay some of her concerns.

The Streisand Effect in Action

Julie Anne left a negative comment on Google about the church. The pastor is suing her for $500,000. Today I checked and there are 548 comments, terribly negative. Wouldn’t it have been better for the pastor to “turn the other cheek?” This sort of publicity will not bode well for the church in the future. Here are a few comments from the site. Note: the lawsuit does not promote a positive view of the Church.

“What jerks – suing someone for an honest review. What a bunch of typical religious con artists. “

“As a fellow Christian and long-time attorney (pro bono) for several state and national church organizations, I am appalled at your church's blatant attempt to snuff out free speech rights for a fellow Christian and ex-congregant. The institutionalization of Jesus' teachings into religion with its intransigent dogma and dictatorial suppression of dissent, challenge, and even mere questions is one of the biggest perversions ever perpetrated on the human race. It makes me sad to say this, but I (at least sometimes) agree with my atheist friends who maintain that a world without any kind of organized religion might just be a better place. However, IF you are gonna call yourself by His name, then please act like you have the unconditional love, compassion, forgiveness, grace, and mercy that was, for His time, the most revolutionary and radical message ever preached. It still is today, but unfortunately Christians rarely practice what they preach.”

“Inappropriate behavior, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39, do follow what you preach, And this is why I dislike religion.”

“A church who sues someone for $500K for posting a review on Google is a church who knows not about turning the other cheek.”

I think the following comment may have been provoked by our good friend Sergius who recently did a hilarious post, Tithe or Die, based on Steve Gaines' weird sermon on tithing. Link

“I went to Beaverton Grace Bible Church and my first born son died. Pretty good service all-in-all, but now I can't go to a chuck-e-cheese without looking really weird (I only go there for the atmosphere, and excellent service, duh). Definitely not worth it”

In light of this, does the pastor believe it is in the best interest of the church to continue? Is it really worth it?

The Overuse of the Word “Slander” and “Defamation.”

As many of you know, we at TWW have had our share of critics. We have been called a whole bunch of names (Assyrian is one of my favorites). Instead of striking back or deleting the comments, we embrace them and have started a list of “What the World is Saying About the Wartburg Watch.” Link. (I added Discernment Divas).

We believe that good humor is a more sensible way to respond to such attacks. We also take the example of Jesus who, when accused, did not respond with fire and brimstone but with questions, silence and love. We do, from time to time, employ cutting wit and hope that can be found somewhere…

Christians, throughout the millennia have been known for the alternative responses of love and grace. Today, they appear to adopt the values of our culture-marketing, money , anger and retribution. Do any of today’s leaders in churches and ministries have enough strength to truly “turn the other cheek?”

The words “slander” and “defamation” are being so overused by today’s churches and leaders that they are virtually devoid of meaning. True slander and defamation occur when people say things that they know to be not true.

For example:

  • If someone were to report that Billy Graham was transgendered, that would be blatantly untrue and truly slander and defamation. However, knowing Graham, he would probably laugh it off.
  • If someone were to say that Mark Driscoll’s pornovisions are creepy and raises questions about his sexual theology, they would not be guilty of slander.
  • If one to report that they believe that CJ Mahaney abused his position as SGM’s President, they would not be guilty of slander. It is simply an opinion.
  • If someone were to report that a church exhibits cultlike tendencies for overuse of church discipline for “questioning authority”, they are not guilty of slander.
  • Furthermore, for all the leaders who are living lifestyles that put them in the top 10% of income earners, I have news for you. It is not gossip for people to wonder about their pastor’s $550,000 house while he is giving sermon after sermon on raising money for a new building.

Some Christian leaders are so thin-skinned that they cannot take critique; gasping and moaning about their critics as if they are being abused on the level of the early Christians. Folks, this is simply not true. The last time I checked, the Coliseum is now in ruins.

Mac Brunson, of FBC Jacksonville, took to the newspapers to call a former member of his church a “sociopath.” He was then voted one of the creepiest people in Jacksonville by the local newspaper. Can you imagine how impressed the good people of Jacksonville would have been if he had said “You know, I get the criticism and I still love Tom Rich and can’t wait to tell him so.”

For all their chit chat about “masculinity,” many of these men act like thin-skinned wusses who can’t take it. Take it from a woman, woman up and turn the other cheek or, better yet, laugh about it and go on. Show the world that you are strong in your ability to tough it out by turning the other cheek, just like Jesus. Love on those who disagree with you. Hug them, invite them to lunch, and tell them how much Jesus loves them. Can you imagine what might happen?

Monday, May 14, 2012

News Roundup: Pastor Files Defamation Suit Against Former, Blogging Parishioner

Roundup of News:  Anabaptist Pastor Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Blog of Former Parishioner

         A British paper is covering a Pastor in Oregon, Chuck O’Neal, who is suing former followers who blogged about him and his church’s practices.  We covered the British article and Dee's post at The Wartburg Watch.  See:  http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/1st-amendment-blogging-and-pastor.html. H/t to Dee for her initiation of the issue to us.
          We provide here a new round-up that has just begun.  We expect more media articles to come.
          We would like to see the pleadings and complaint filed in the Oregon court.  This raises First Amendment issues.  We believe this will explode on Pastor Chuck O’Neal and his Anabaptist Church; further, we think this an important case.  This will probably be tossed quickly.  Further, it appears that "Pastor Chuck" can dish up public criticisms but can't take it himself.  Rather churlish, we might say. This is precisely why we have the First Amendment.
          Having said that, we assert this importance of the 9th commandment vis a vis the Westminster Larger Catechism.  See:  http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/westminster-larger-catechism-141-150.html.  There are numerous biblical issues at bar.
          We provide a roundup of four news reports.  They will be separated by lines.
          The first report is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144038/Pastor-Charles-ONeal-sues-church-members.html.   The second through fourth are:  ABC News here, Fox News here and a more local level (here) with KATU news.    

Church pastor sues former followers for $500,000 after he was called 'narcissist' in online blog

PUBLISHED: 01:01 EST, 14 May 2012 | UPDATED: 01:01 EST, 14 May 2012
A stay-at-home mother has been sued by the church she once attended because she criticised the pastor and his religious methods in an online blog.
Julie Anne Smith and her family decided to distance themselves from Beaverton Grace Bible Church because they did not agree with the church's ways.
Mrs Smith then says that she was shunned by friends in Oregon because Pastor Charles O'Neal encouraged members not have friends outside of the church community.
Blasphemy? Church pastor Charles O'Neal (right) is suing Julie Anne Smith in Oregon because she wrote negative things in a blog about Beaverton Grace Bible Church.
Mrs Smith aired her grievances online and started a blog last year called Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors - where she accused Pastor O'Neal of 'narcissism' and 'misleading the congregation'.
However the mother, her daughter and three others who raised questions about the church's practices were served with a $500,000 suit for defamation of character by her former church leader several days later.
She told ABC: 'All we did was asked questions. We just raised concerns. There’s no sin in that.'
Among her complaints were that the church discouraged parishioners to have friendships outside the church and told them what to wear.
Pastor O'Neal could not be reached for a comment at this time. The case will be heard before a judge later this month.
Gathering: The Smith family left Beaverton Grace Bible Church because they did not agree with some of its practices.
Read more:



May 13, 2012 4:40pm 

Oregon Church Sues Ex-Members Over Online Criticism

(Image Credit: Beaverton Grace Bible Church)

When Julie Anne Smith and her family severed ties with the Beaverton Grace Bible Church a few years ago, she said, former friends acted like the Oregon mother and her family were complete strangers.

“If I went to Costco or any place in town, if I ran into somebody, they would turn their heads and walk the other way,” Smith told ABC affiliate KATU-TV in Portland. “All we did was asked questions. We just raised concerns. There’s no sin in that.”
Smith may have lost her former friends, but she said she never imagined she and her daughter be hit with a $500,000 lawsuit for defamation for speaking her mind on the Internet. Three other commenters who criticized the church were also named in the suit.
“You will be fine at this church if you never question the elders or pastor,” Smith wrote on Sept. 29, 2011, one of many online reviews she wrote critical of the church, according to court documents.
She said Pastor Charles O’Neal was guilty of “narcissism in the pulpit” and had “chosen to mislead the congregation.”
Smith described a church that told members what to wear, had communal foot washings and discouraged members from having friends outside the church.
She said church members began adding positive reviews, pushing her words down the page and her posts were removed. In February, Smith started a blog called “Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors.”
Three days after starting the blog, she was served with the lawsuit, she said.
“The story of spiritual abuse needs to be told. People are being hurt emotionally and spiritually by pastors who use bully tactics and we need a place to learn, to talk freely, and to heal. I will not be silenced,” she wrote on her blog.
ABC News’ calls to Beaverton Grace Bible Church were not returned.
The suit is scheduled to be heard by a judge later this month.

Oregon mother, daughter reportedly sued for writing bad reviews of church online

Published May 14, 2012
FoxNews.com
An Oregon pastor is reportedly suing a mother and her daughter for $500,000 after the two blogged about the church and described it as "cult-like."

Pastor Charles O'Neal of the Beaverton Grace Bible Church claims reviews on a blog started by former church member Julie Anne Smith amount to defamation.

Smith, who says "the story of spiritual abuse needs to be told," described O'Neal and his church outside Portland as "creepy" and "cult-like." She described him calling for church elders to search closets of female congregants for clothes that are too revealing, among other lessons from the pulpit.

Smith told the KATU.com that she and her family were shunned by community members after leaving the church in Beaverton a few years ago. Smith said she then began writing Google and DEX reviews of the church as well as a blog.

"I thought, I'm just going to post a review," Smith said. "We do it with restaurants and hotels and whatnot, and I thought, why not do it with this church?" Smith told the website.

O'Neal claims in his lawsuit that Smith's use of words like "creepy," "cult," "control tactics," and "spiritual abuse," are defamation. O'Neal is suing Smith as well as her daughter and three other commentators, according to the website.

The pastor could not be reached, but audio clips of several of his sermons are available on the church's website. On one, he blasts the late televangelist the Rev. Robert Schuller, saying his book, "Self Esteem: The New Reformation" is "a book that will one day be burned in the fires of Hell."

Smith says the online reviews and blog are protected under the right to free speech.

"What somebody does in the church is one thing, but when you get out into society we have the right to free speech, and it may not be what people want to hear, but we absolutely have that right," she told the website. "He can say what he wants in the church and say, don't talk about this or don't talk about that, or don't talk to this person, but when you're out in the civil world, you don't do that anymore ... And he's not my pastor anymore. He does not have that right to keep people from talking."



Beaverton church sues family after they criticize it online
By Anita Kissée KATU News and KATU.com StaffPublished: May 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM PDTLast Updated: May 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM PDT 
BEAVERTON, Ore. - A church pastor is suing a mother and daughter for $500,000 because they gave the church bad reviews online.

The family being sued left the church a few years ago and Julie Anne Smith says she and her family were shunned and couldn't understand why. So she went online and wrote Google and DEX reviews of the church and then started a blog.

"I thought, I'm just going to post a review," Smith said. "We do it with restaurants and hotels and whatnot, and I thought, why not do it with this church?"

Never did she think Beaverton Grace Bible Church and Pastor Charles O'Neal would slap her with the lawsuit.

"I'm a stay-at-home mom. I teach my kids at home, and this is just not the amount of money that normal moms have."

When the family left the church, Smith says friends were told to end all contact with her.

"If I went to Costco or any place in town, if I ran into somebody, they would turn their heads and walk the other way," she said. "All we did was asked questions. We just raised concerns. There's no sin in that."

Dissatisfied, she went online to write reviews. Other church members counteracted them with church praise. So Smith started a blog called "Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors."

But the pastor claims in the lawsuit he filed that her words, "creepy," "cult," "control tactics," and "spiritual abuse," are defamation.

"What somebody does in the church is one thing, but when you get out into society we have the right to free speech, and it may not be what people want to hear, but we absolutely have that right," Smith said.

The lawsuit didn’t just target Smith. Her daughter and three other commenters are also being sued.

"He can say what he wants in the church and say, don't talk about this or don't talk about that, or don't talk to this person, but when you're out in the civil world, you don't do that anymore," Smith said. "And he's not my pastor anymore. He does not have that right to keep people from talking."

The Smiths filed a special free speech motion to dismiss the lawsuit. It goes before a judge later this month.

KATU News called the church, went there, went to the pastor's home and spoke to his wife. KATU News also called the pastor's attorney. All of them declined to give their side of the story.

1st Amendment, Blogging, and Pastor O'Neal's Lawsuit Against Former Blogging-Parishioners

          Reformation Anglicanism regularly follows The Wartburg Watch, especially since they began covering C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM).  On that odious note, the SGM-saga of Baptacostals, we continue to recommend www.brentdetwiler.com, www.survivors.com and www.sgmrefuge.com for SGM-updates.  Although not infallible comments and commentaries, they give insights if one pursues the issue of patterns of abuse.  But, we digress. 

          We have chosen to cover this because of “First Amendment” issues and our continuing development of binders of state and federal rulings on the First Amendment.  Correlatively, there are First Amendment issues at Vanderbilt University that are ongoing.  Here, however, in this article and in this instance, a Pastor, Chuck O’Neal, of Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Oregon (here), has chosen to pursue a blogger, a former parishioner.  Allegedly, the cause of action is defamation. 
          There are important legal issues here.  Apparently, news outlets are picking it up:  ABC News here, Fox News here (and now the UK here).  Apparently, it started at a more local level here with KATU news. 
          Thanks Dee for raising this.  Here’s Dee’s post.

Pastor Makes International News by Suing Blogging Critic-Is John MacArthur’s Church Involved?

Mon, May 14 2012

By dee
I choose not to give energy to the emotions of revenge, hatred or the desire to subjugate. Roseanne Cash
A few months ago, we received a call from Julie Ann Smith who explained that she was being sued by a former pastor, Chuck O’Neal, of Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Oregon here.
Julie relayed to me the pain that caused her to leave her former church. I attempted to reach the pastor at the time but he did not return my call. Today, at 3:00 PM EST, his inbox is completely filled up. Could it be calls from the national media? Poor Chuck. I would not want to be his attorney.
The Story Heats Up

The story broke with local news media. Let’s pick it up here with KATU news.
“The family being sued left the church a few years ago and Julie Anne Smith says she and her family were shunned and couldn't understand why. So she went online and wrote Google and DEX reviews of the church and then started a blog.

When the family left the church, Smith says friends were told to end all contact with her.

"If I went to Costco or any place in town, if I ran into somebody, they would turn their heads and walk the other way," Dissatisfied, she went online to write reviews. Other church members counteracted them with church praise. So Smith started a blog called "Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors."link.

 But the pastor claims in the lawsuit he filed that her words, "creepy," "cult," "control tactics," and "spiritual abuse," are defamation.
The lawsuit targeted Smith, her daughter and three other commenters . He is asking for $500,000 in damages. Here is the KATU broadcast.
Did a pastor(s) at John MacArthur’s church misuse the office of the pastor?
Julie has since moved out of state but this pastor is hell bent on this lawsuit, pursuing her across state lines. Why? At FBC Jax here, we learn: (O'Neal speaking)

"After seeking counsel from a pastor on staff with Grace Community Church (under Pastor John MacArthur) and reading him several excerpts from Julie Anne's endless defamation, he recommended that we FILE A LAWSUIT in an appeal to Caesar as the Apostle Paul did when falsely accused of crimes against God and the state."

What follows next is my own conjecture. I have not spoken to Julie about this concern.

I have some background to add to O’Neal’s statement. According to Julie, a few months ago, knowing Chuck O’Neal’s devotion to everything John MacArthur, she called MacArthur’s church, asking for help in resolving/mediating this situation. She said a pastor spoke with her at length about the situation and said he would speak with O’Neal. She later was told that there was nothing the church could do to stop O’Neal’s lawsuit.

Was there more to this story? Could it be that pastor(s) at Grace Community Church (MacArthur’s) were actively counseling this pastor to sue his former church member? If they were, did they not have the obligation to tell Julie that they were involved in advocating the pastor to sue her?

This could give the appearance of duplicity. For example, it could appear, in the conversations with Julie, that they were seeking information to help O’Neal. If this were so, it could be viewed as a despicable act, misusing the office of pastor for the gain of one of their devoted followers. But, they could also have been on the side of the angels, encouraging Chuck to reconcile and trying to help Julie.

I believe that Grace Community Church has an obligation to clear up this matter. Approximately 5 hours ago I called Grace Community Church and spoke with two secretaries, stating that I planned to post questions regarding their involvement in this situation. I warned the church that news of this poorly conceived lawsuit has now garnered the attention of ABC News here, Fox News here (and now the UK here) indicating that this will become a internationally discussed case. I carefully spelled out my concerns, warning them that I would post this in 5 hours. If you are reading this, you can assume that TWW did not receive a response.
If Grace Community Church played any role in encouraging this lawsuit, then I hope the lawyer for the defense will depose the church and expose their involvement. I pray that it isn’t so.
Bene Diction and The Streisand Effect
Meantime, Bene Diction Blogs On, here, provides some interesting insights as well.
“What lawyer wouldn’t want to defend Julie Anne? Her lawyer filed a motion to dismiss in April and it goes to a judge May 21st. Chuck still doesn’t get it. He amended his lawsuit the first week of May, adding another person and again claiming defamation. Needless to say the Google reviews on his church are multiplying, and those reviews are not in favour of pastor Chuck and Beaverton Grace Bible Church.”
Bene cleverly points out that this pastor may find out that he is the recipient of the “Streisand Effect.” From Wikipedia, we learn “The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.” In other words, O'Neal and his church will now be the recipient of all sorts of unwanted attention.
Chuck O’Neal: Is this Hypocrisy?
Tom Rich, over at the FBC jax post linked above, had this to add.
“If you go back and listen to one of Chuck's sermons entitled "Emergent Church Apostasy – Wolves in Our Midst" – Chuck goes after emergent church leaders Doug Pagitt, Brian Mclaron, and Rob Bell for their false teachings. Chuck says that Brian Mclaron "serves the devil", he claims all three men are "wolves in sheep's clothing", he calls them "false prophets", and says Rob Bell is a "dangerous man". It is a very scathing sermon and he attacks these men's motives and their character and their ministries. And no doubt Chuck will say that he is doing it because he is called by God to call out and expose what he perceives to be false teachers.
For Chuck to file a lawsuit against Julie Anne for criticizing religious leaders, while Chuck himself uses his pulpit to criticize harshly religious leaders, makes Chuck a hypocrite. And we know what Jesus thinks about religious hypocrites. Chuck, whether you like it or not, Julie Anne Smith is just as called of God as you are to expose what she believes to be false and harmful teachers.
Here is a link to a post O’Neal did at eChristian. Let’s see who he calls apostates. (This means people who have renounced their faith). And he has the chutzpah to go after Julie??!! (Note to Julie: Make sure the judge sees this one)!
Yale Divinity School professors originally authored the apostate letter, but there are over 300 “Christian” theologians, pastors, and leaders that have signed on. The list reads mostly as a who’s who of apostates, but there are probably a few that we would all be surprised to find in apostate company supporting an apostate letter. Here are just a few of the notable names:
·      Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals
·      
David Yonggi Cho, Founder and Senior Pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church, Seoul, Korea

·      Lynn Green, International Chairman, Youth With A Mission

·      Bill Hybels, Founder and Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, IL

·      Duane Litfin, President, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL
·      Richard Mouw, President and Professor of Christian Philosophy, Fuller Theological Seminary
·      
Rev. Roy Oksnevad, Director Muslim Ministry, Billy Graham Center at Wheaton, IL

·      Doug Pennoyer, Dean, School of Intercultural Studies, Biola University

·      
Rev. Dr. John Stott, Rector Emeritus, All Souls Church, Langham Place, London, UK
·      Michael W. Treneer, International President, The Navigators, Colorado Springs, CO

·      Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, and The Purpose Driven Life, Lake Forest, CA
Bloggers: Be Aware of SLAPP tactics
It is also important to note that O’Neal could possibly be pulling a SLAPP lawsuit. Bloggers everywhere need to be aware of this tactic. Thankfully, Oregon recognizes this unsavory device and has implemented recourse for victims. I have it on good authority that an Anti-Slapp motion may have been employed in this matter. The following is a simple explanation of this tactic from Wikipedia here.
"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Other widely mentioned elements of a SLAPP are the actual effectiveness at silencing critics, the timing of the suit, inclusion of extra or spurious defendants (such as relatives or hosts of legitimate defendants)attempts to identify anonymous or pseudonymous critics and attempts to run up defendants' costs even if this clearly costs more to the plaintiffs."
Hmmmmm…….
TWW’s take on the matter
·      This is a foolish lawsuit which will bring shame to the pastor and the church.
·      Julie and the other defendants will win this lawsuit.
·      Chuck O’Neal should drop the suit and save himself (and his church) money and ridicule.
·      Julie will receive remuneration for her court and attorney costs and fees.
·      John MacArthur’s church should speak out immediately about Grace Community Church’s involvement in this fiasco and distance themselves from this pastor.
·      Christian bloggers need to be aware that “big names” may be involving themselves in blogging issues. In such cases, be aware of anti-SLAPP guidelines.
·      This is a First Amendment case, pure and simple.
·      The pastor should learn to turn the other cheek and show grace under pressure.
Now, we leave you with a performance of the musical hit ,“Barbra Streisand,” performed by the cast of Glee (Chris Peterman-we are thinking of you!). Each time you hear “Barbra Streisand,” substitute Chuck O’Neal and pray for Julie. Julie, we will join in the dance when you prevail, and you will!