Obama Promises: "Then v. Now"

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?

Lydia's Corner: Ezekiel 44:1-45:12 1 Peter 1:1-12 Psalm 119:17-32 Proverbs 28:8-10

Vetting Elites: Anglican Bishops in Church of Ireland

Vetting Theological Elites, e.g Bishops

          Reformation Anglicanism has been attempting to follow the  Anglican Church of Ireland and their issues with homoerotic unions, legalized sodomy and, in general, sexual sins.  This can be subsumed under the current Confessional discussions at Reformation Anglicanism about the 9^th commandment, truth, integrity, Biblical fidelity, Confessional integrity, decency and courage.

           Never has so much noise been made by so few with so little Biblical support with such effect resulting in such wide caterwauling!  These Bishops, themselves, are good arguments against episcopacy!

          This is a 5- to 10-minute problem with some leadership, courage and integrity.  The time has come for serious "vetting" and where, as necessary, rebuttal of these episcopal elites. Time for theological Marines to congregate. 

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/coi-bishops-split-on-marriage-vote-1-3838456

CoI bishops split on marriage vote

Revd Alan Harper, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland addresses the General Synod in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.

Published on Monday 14 May 2012 08:38

TWO Church of Ireland bishops have taken the highly unusual step of publicly voting against a motion brought by other bishops which re-stated the church’s traditional teaching on marriage.

The liberal bishops of Cork and Cashel and Ossory opposed a General Synod motion which attempted to clarify the church’s teaching on same-sex relationships by stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

In a public display of the disagreements within the Church of Ireland’s leadership on the issue of homosexuality, Bishops Michael Burrows and Paul Colton voted against the motion at the church’s general synod in Dublin, while the 10 other bishops supported it.

Saturday’s debate was the first time that the church had openly debated homosexuality since the News Letter revealed last September that the first serving Church of Ireland cleric had entered a civil partnership.

Yesterday a liberal Dublin minister blamed conservatives from Northern Ireland for having “suddenly appeared” on Saturday to vote through the motion.

But the leading evangelical bishop, Harold Miller – who seconded Saturday’s motion – dismissed that and said: “Anyone who wanted to be there could be there.”

The motion — who said that “faithfulness within marriage is the only normative context for sexual intercourse” — was only discussed on Saturday after tense behind-the-scenes meetings following Archbishop Alan Harper’s refusal to allow it to be discussed because of a point of order on Thursday.

Saturday’s vote came after an attempt to remove the Press was rejected. The synod voted for the motion by 245 votes to 115. Clergy voted by 81 to 53 and laity by 154 to 60.

A series of amendments to the motion were defeated before the final vote.

The motion — which was implicitly a rejection of civil partnerships or gay marriage — has been welcomed by evangelicals, who see it as a restatement of the church’s orthodox teaching.

But liberals are largely unhappy and have claimed that it could lead to a “witch hunt” against gay clergy.

It is not yet clear whether the motion will be used by conservatives in an attempt to have Dean Gordon and his bishop, Michael Burrows, disciplined over the dean’s civil partnership.

However, rumours that an attempt may have been made at the synod to bring Bishop Burrows — who was openly jeered by a large section of the audience on Thursday when he spoke against the marriage motion — proved unfounded.

Archbishop of Dublin Michael Jackson presented the motion as “the next stage of engagement with one another around these issues” and stressed that the word “normative” was “used theologically” in the motion. He insisted that it was not used “in any such way as to make anyone abnormal”.

Archbishop Jackson told the synod that “for many, this has become the defining issue of international Anglicanism”.

The Bishop of Down and Dromore, Harold Miller, said that “although proposed by the Archbishop of Dublin and seconded by myself, the essential contents of this motion have emerged from the corporate thinking of the bishops”.

He added: “The bishops have taken very seriously their role in maintaining and furthering the unity of the church at a time when that has been threatened in the wider Anglican Communion. So the contents of this motion were not arrived at lightly.”

Both bishops’ speeches were met with loud applause.

As well as re-affirming the church’s teaching on marriage, the motion also gave authority to the church’s powerful Standing Committee to further discuss the issue of homosexuality and bring recommendations to next year’s synod.

And the motion supported a “continuing commitment to love our neighbour, and opposition to all unbiblical and uncharitable actions and attitudes in respect of human sexuality from whatever perspective, including bigotry, hurtful words or actions, and demeaning or damaging language.”

Vetting Cultural/Media Elites: 9th Commandment, Truth, Journalists, MSNBC and Ann Romney

Vetting Cultural/Media Elites
9^th Commandment and MSNBC, But What Would They Know About That?

         
         Thank God for the Bible; thank God for the old Catechisms of the Reformation.  It's the way this scribe was reared.  We addressed the Westminster Larger Catechism this morning at:  http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/westminster-larger-catechism-141-150.html. 

          Two things are offered.  First, we post an article about MSNBC and the outrageous, un-rebutted, unchecked, gratuitous and manifestly stupid comments about Ann Romney…comparing her to Hitler and Stalin.  Are there no standards of pursuit of factual patterns?  After we cite the news article for your review, we post the 9^th commandment from the Westminster Larger Catechism, 143-145. 

          I’ve been noticing this more intensely of recent.  I’ve been asking questions about this.  Is it me?  My dear wife, Sharon, am I just getting older and more aware? I've always known about leftward leaning journalists, academics and Churchmen.  But, is it getting worse?   Or, is the cable “noise networks” getting worse? 

          As for MSNBC, I’ve come to dubbing them “marionettes, ventriloquists, salesmen, dictationists, press secretaries, and advocates” of Obamaites.  As to the 9^th commandment, it warrants review and reassertion.

          In re training.  My theological training has sensitized me here, no thanks to Presbyterian or Episcopal Professors.  Unfortunately, I had to teach myself.  Assuredly, my English literature and Law Professors insists on facts, good thesis sentences, good definitions, weighty arguments, careful deliberations, and justifiable conclusions.  That’s the stuff of scholarship.  Yet, such things like this from MSNBC occurs without rebuttal?  Ann Romney akin to Stalin and Hitler?

          Scholar-Pastor-Brothers, let the 9^th commandment have visibility with our children and grandchildren.  If they rely on current centres of information and training, they will never have the tools to vet these folks.  Notably, the old 1662 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) contained the 10 commandments.  So did the 1873 BCP.  However, the 1928 and 1979 BPCs saw fit to minimize and mitigate the 10 commandments, horrible setbacks in Anglicanism.  Fortunately, Confessional Reformed Churchmen never tossed the 10 commandments.   As we speak, vast hordes of American Pastors and their followers have “small to no” views in re the 10 commandments.

          Again, two things are offered.  First, the MSNBC article that freely compares Ann Romney to infamous 20^th century fascists followed by the second article from the Westminster Larger Catechism. 

          Here’s the precipitating article.

http://times247.com/articles/ann-romney-compared-to-hitler-on-msnbc

Ann Romney compared to Hitler, Stalin on MSNBC

by: Noel Sheppard

MSNBC hosts Eve Ensler and
and Michelle Goldberg
wonder aloud about the value of motherhood on
Sunday, May 13.
Photo Credit:MSNBC

Photo Credit:  MSNBC

MSNBC hosts Eve Ensler and and Michelle Goldberg wonder aloud about the value of motherhood on Sunday, May 13.

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, Newsweek/Daily Beast senior contributor Michelle Goldberg called Ann Romney "insufferable" on MSNBC this morning.

Seconds later, she also compared the wife of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.   "You know, yes, motherhood is beautiful," Goldberg continued. "I found that phrase 'the crown of motherhood' really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like The Cross of Motherhood, that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it."

Here's what Mrs. Romney wrote at USA Today Thursday that somehow reminded Goldberg of Hitler and Stalin: "Cherish your mothers. The ones who wiped your tears, who were at every ball game or ballet recital. The ones who believed in you, even when nobody else did, even when maybe you didn't believe in yourself. Women wear many hats in their lives. Daughter, sister, student, breadwinner. But no matter where we are or what we're doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood. There is no crown more glorious."

Related:
Washington Post's hit piece on Romney 'implodes'
Read about more media bias at times247.com/mainstream-media Read the original article at Newsbusters
Read more:  http://times247.com/articles/ann-romney-compared-to-hitler-on-msnbc#ixzz1utNkb9Sc

Here is the thoughtful, deliberative and scholarly Westminster Larger Catechism.  Imagine practicing this in news analysis?

Q. 143. Which is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any; endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

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 9^th 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.    

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144038/Pastor-Charles-ONeal-sues-church-members.html.

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

By Daily Mail Reporter

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:

KATU.com: Beaverton church sues family after they criticize it online
Read more:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144038/Pastor-Charles-ONeal-sues-church-members.html#ixzz1ut35dxvz

 From ABC at:  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/oregon-church-sues-ex-members-over-online-criticism/  

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.

From Fox, this at:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/14/oregon-mother-daughter-reportedly-sued-for-writing-bad-reviews-church-online/%20

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."

Click for more on this story from KATU.com

From Katu.com, this:   http://www.katu.com/news/local/Beaveton-Grace-Bible-Church-lawsuit-charles-oneal-julie-anne-smith-151227055.html

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.