"...When He [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matt 9:36

"Do not rob the poor, because he is poor... for the Lord will take up their case and plunder those who plunder them." Proverbs 22:22-23

Friday, June 1, 2012

Greater Love Hath No Pastor Than When He Removeth His Sheep From His Slandereth Lawsuit - Some Thoughts on the Julie Anne Smith Case

"You do not become a 'dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society." Vaclav Havel, Czech Dissident
--------------------------------------
Things are getting stranger by the day in the story of the Oregon pastor who has sued some of his former church members for their online criticism of he and his church.

In this article I want to highlight just a few of the twists and turns - for the entire story and literally a day-by-day chronicle of events, visit Julie Anne Smith's blog.

First, let me say this about Julie Anne and her blog: I really do commend Julie Anne for continuing to use her blog as a means to highlight the actions of her former pastor in real time. I also chose this route in 2008 when the letter of my 16 sins and trespass papers for me and my wife (her sin of "associating" with me, a sinful, slandering blogger) were delivered to our doorstep on the eve of Thanksgiving. As we have seen in several high-profile cases of church intimidation and spiritual abuse, religious men tend to overlook the possibility that what they think will be a quiet, behind-the-scenes method to intimidate dissenters into silence, might actually turn into a humiliating public record of their own actions.

In my opinion, what Chuck thought would be a nifty way to get Julie Anne to cower in fear over her blog by slapping her and other church members with a slander lawsuit, knowing Julie Anne probably didn't have the resources to wage a legal battle with a pastor and church, causing her to shut her blog down - it all has now blown up in Chuck's face. His actions are now international news as people are dumbfounded to hear of a pastor suing his former church members. Julie Anne has an extremely competent lawyer, and has the support of thousands and is raising money for her defense. Multiple thousands of readers per day are reading what is happening. Of course if somehow Chuck prevails in striking down Julie Anne's anti-SLAPP motion, I fully expect Chuck to move for a gag order.

Blogs today are a reality that pastors need to deal with. Blogs like Julie Anne's are the place where pastor misconduct, spiritual abuse, and false doctrines are met head-on by the analysis, critique, and criticism of Christian lay people who care about their church and care about the blight these pastors' actions have become in modern Christianity. Religious men will always accuse their critics of "slander and gossip". Even the highest most holy-men of God in the SBC accused Wade Burleson of slander and gossip when he used a blog to give voice to his objections over harmful policies implemented by the International Mission Board. It doesn't matter if done anonymously or with your name attached to the criticism. We've seen enough over the past 5 years or so since blogs have become a popular vehicle for critique and dissent to know that ANY dissent expressed in ways not approved by the holy men of God, made in a public venue, will get the stamp of "gossip and slander".

So keep on speaking, Julie Anne.

OK, back to the point of this post.

Here are some comments on two recent developments in Julie Anne's case:
 
Modification of the "Press Release"
The Beaverton Grace Bible Church apparently doesn't like their May 16th "press release" so much any more. As I blogged here, Chuck O'Neal and the BGBC leadership issued their press release as the "other side to the story" that wasn't being reported in the press, or on Julie Anne Smith's blog.

But apparently their "other side" has another side to the other side. You see, in the past week or so, Chuck and BGBC has significantly modified the press release on their website.

And no explanation for the edits was given. No statement of retraction

Here is what they changed...below is the first portion of the 2nd paragraph of the May 16th press release in which Chuck and BGBC tells the world what the "facts" will reveal:
"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.”.....
See the red letters? Those have been deleted by Chuck and BGBC in the current version of the press release hyperlinked on their website.

Chuck and BGBC owe the world an explanation for the significant modification to their press release. Chuck and the holy men of God at BGBC released it to the world when the story was very hot, and they accused Julie Anne and the other defendants of committing the crime of purposely delivering a false report of child abuse to a state child protection agency and to the civil authorities.

Why did Chuck take it down? Chuck - why?

Interestingly, there is a new statement from Chuck on his website stating he is an American Patriot claiming his right to defend himself from:

"....World Wide Web Internet assaults consisting of false criminal accusations and character assassination of the worst kind."

He claims his lawsuit is to defend himself against "false criminal accusations". Seems he might have made a false criminal accusation on his website against his former church members.

No Greater Love Hath the Pastor....
...than when he removeth the sheep from his lawsuit. As Julie Anne reported on her blog Wednesday, Chuck has amended his lawsuit and removed the defendant whom he accused of slander when she stated online Chuck was a "wolf" and who recommended online that people don't visit the church because it is a "hellhole".

Finally, a good move by Chuck and BGBC. But why did Chuck sue this person to begin with? This, in my humble opinion, strengthens Julie Anne's anti-SLAPP case. That might help convince a judge that the motives here were not to defend himself against defamatory remarks online (no way calling someone a "wolf" or a church a "hellhole" is legally defamatory), but to intimidate former church members into silence through a lawsuit. That is exactly why there are anti-SLAPP options available to defendants such as Julie Anne.

55 comments:

Thy Peace said...

Here is relevant comment by Julie Anne on the sexual abuse claim.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Thanks Thy Peace. No question, Chuck removed that from his "press release" because it wa false. He falsely accused them of committing a crime and a heinous act of falsely accusing someone of abuse.

Anonymous said...

The wolves will try anything to silence people from telling the truth about them. They'll use fear(intimidation), munipulation, lawsuits,etc.Their self-entitlment ego is what drives them.

Debbie Kaufman said...

It seems Chuck is going to keep changing wording on his website and press releases until public opinion is swayed his way. I don't think it will stop here, but many changes and accusations are going to fly from him.

He sees this has blown up in his face and he's going to keep trying. If he is billing himself as an American Patriot then this shows he is a zealot in my opinion and they will stop at nothing to get the desired results. He crossed the wrong person when he crossed swords with Julie. My money is on Julie. :) Good job as always Watchdog and Julie.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting this. The issue of Chuck being accused of possible sexual harassment and or abuse within his home was a particularly interesting affair. I'm almost positive that Chuck is not a sexual or physical abuser, maybe verbal and spiritual. But it is my understanding that Chuck told his own church members to not report to authorities a potential problem with a known sex offender in the church. When one of the church members finally got fed up with the problem not being addressed they decided to go to authorities despite the possibility of "Church Discipline" for going against the pastor. When the member was asked by authorities why they had not come forward sooner, that church member explained that they were told by Chuck not to go to the authorities. Any legal authority would recognize that as a potential problem and that is why Chuck was investigated. Basically Chuck made the wrong call, and rather then fessing up to his mistake, he blamed this former church member for essentially doing the right thing, which resulted in his own image as the "Good Pastor", being tainted. I'd like to point out that this information is known only second hand and I'm not naming any names for legal reason. I just know from what I have been told that this all goes back to a pride issue with Chuck. He got accused of something heinous because he was not wise enough in how he handled a situation. Rather then shrugging it off, he went on the attack and he's been on the attack ever since against anyone who would say something bad about him or HIS (Chuck's) church.

Bridget said...

Watchdog -

I think the intimidation goes beyond "former" members and is also a way to silence current members from ever sharing any concerns they have with this pastor. Who would want to take a chance of possibly being treated as Julie Anne and the others have been treated? There is a real "fear factor"
involved for many people who are new Christians, timid, or for some reason weak, in taking action when they have a pastor like this. Some pastors take advantage of people in these states and it is quite disturbing. These are the very people they should be caring for.

Barb Orlowski, D.Min. said...

Thanks Watchdog for the good detective work. A star for you!

Had to say that I loved the chuckle moment:
"But apparently their "other side" has another side to the other side."
Classic!

OK, keep at it!

A Fellow Traveller re spiritual abuse.

Barb Orlowski, D.Min. said...

Oh, and I loved the quote!

Yup, that about covers it.

I plan to share that quote with a number of others.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

The quote from Vaclav Havel I actually saw first in Wade Burleson's book "Hardball Religion". I'm getting ready to do a series of posts on the last 6 years of blogging. I've uncovered a very important Ergun Caner sermon delivered to the Georgia Baptist Evangelical convention back in February 2007 where he took the first shots against blogging that I've been able to find. Quite a sermon, and absolutely stunning to hear him blast the very medium that would be the one to bring to light his 9 years of deception. So stay tuned...

Anonymous said...

Off topic but did you see this regarding Richard Land?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_SOUTHERN_BAPTISTS_VAOL-?SITE=VALYD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

tikatu said...

Has someone taken actual screenshots of the magic morphing press release? Reporting the text is well and good; screenshots showing the actual differences are even better.

Just passing that along.

Julie Anne said...

Anon 2:35 said this: "When the member was asked by authorities why they had not come forward sooner, that church member explained that they were told by Chuck not to go to the authorities. Any legal authority would recognize that as a potential problem and that is why Chuck was investigated."

After the pastor and evidently his children were investigated, he and his elders came to our homes, unannounced (this was weeks after we had left the church) with a hidden recording device demanding to know who turned him in for abuse. I told him that I knew of no one who had turned him in for abuse, but I did know who reported incidences of sex abuse in the church and that I was not at liberty to disclose who told me.

DHS was called about juvenile sex offender in the church and a couple other sexual-related incidences, none having to do with the pastor. Why did DHS investigate the pastor? DHS has to answer for that and we will probably never know. We can only speculate that perhaps they thought there were two many incidences of unreported sex abuse in the church to warrant further investigation. These offenses were not minor offenses, they were rape with penetration, etc. To be a pastor and say, "we'll handle it on our own without reporting it" would send warning signals to most people. This particular juvenile has been tried and convicted. The MSNBC article says court documents say: the sex offender touched one of his sisters inappropriately.

Inappropriate touching is not the same as rape. Give me a break. If that is what has been reported to church members vs what court documents really say about the conviction, surely there is a cover-up going on.

Anonymous said...

I dunno Dog. Looks like Chuck is refining his game a bit. I would not call his actions a retreat. JA had better dig in. He does not seem to be running out of steam and if he get's past the anti-slapp and if she turns out to be the one that reported him, she is going to have a fight.

Can you imagine if your neighbor reported a similar baseless claim against you? Most would sue their butts back to the stone age! Paul could stand in front of me and threaten me with the gates of hell and it would not stop me.

Anonymous said...

Here is the other relevant comment about JA's statement regarding the abuse claim:
Here

Wanda (Deb) Martin said...

FBC Jax Watchdog,

Thanks for bringing attention to this very serious matter. We look forward to covering it soon!

On that note, just wanted to let you know that our EChurch post is up. We will begin allowing comments Monday and should be back to normal by then. Sorry for the technical difficulties.

We have such an outpouring of concern, and we want to thank you for your prayers! To God be the glory!

The Other Tom said...

“if he get's past the anti-slapp and if she turns out to be the one that reported him, she is going to have a fight.”

No she won’t. According to the Oregon DHS website:

“Q. Can I be sued if I report?
Oregon law (ORS 419B.025) provides that anyone participating in good faith in the making of a report of child abuse and who has reasonable grounds for making the report, shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed with respect to the making or content of such report. Any such participant shall have the same immunity with respect to participating in any judicial proceeding resulting from such report.”
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtml#question6

The ONLY hope that Cult Master Chuck O‘Neal has on this issue is for HE to PROVE that Julie Ann, or whoever may have brought DHS into this, did not participate in “good faith.” The burden is SOLELY on HIM. Neither Julie Ann nor anyone else has to prove a thing.

As this entire situation works out, Cult Master Chuck O’Neal proves day by day that he is a complete and total failure as an American, a pastor, a Christian, and a man. And if he wants to sue me for my comments, Bring it on, LOSER!!!

Thy Peace said...

The Other Tom:

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Julie Anne said...

For the record, I did not report it, but I know who did. It was reported in good faith for the sole purpose of protecting the children who were still living with the sex offender and also concern for other children who would be around the sex offender at church/functions.

The pastor knew of this situation for close to 8 months before my friend reported it and DHS finally got involved. And twice in his court declaration, pastor mentions having knowledge of the sex offender allegedly abusing his siblings, not one, but plural.

So the question then is: why did the pastor not report it? Who is asking that question?

Please, keep in mind, this was NOT a case of inappropriate touch to one child as was mentioned in the MSNBC article. This was rape. Many counts. Of little children. Please!

The MSNBC article which is the only article referenced on the church website (hmmm) states: "allegedly touched one of his sisters inappropriately". One of his sisters? If this is what was reported to MSNBC, then they are grossly minimizing the situation. The sex abuse with siblings is stated at least twice in the pastor's court declaration and also mentioned in the mother's court declaration. Why is whomever was interviewed saying there was only one victim and saying "inappropriate touch". When does rape equal inappropriate touch? Stop this insanity!

Anonymous said...

That is a great point "other tom." That is a great law and is meant to protect the innocent and not a cloak for those who are out to get even or get blog hits... If the reporting person turns out to be one of the actors on JA's blog, then I would think that the judge would have to rule in favor of O'neal and let the matter proceed. Just my opinion, but Oneal has rights as well.

Anonymous said...

"The other tom said: As this entire situation works out, Cult Master Chuck O’Neal proves day by day that he is a complete and total failure as an American, a pastor, a Christian, and a man. And if he wants to sue me for my comments, Bring it on, LOSER!!!"

[Not exactly an example of Christian charity?]

The Other Tom said...

"Anonymous said...
"The other tom said: As this entire situation works out, Cult Master Chuck O’Neal proves day by day that he is a complete and total failure as an American, a pastor, a Christian, and a man. And if he wants to sue me for my comments, Bring it on, LOSER!!!"

[Not exactly an example of Christian charity?]"

Each and every word I said was THE TRUTH, as proven by Cult Master Chuck O'Neal's evil words and evil actions. I will stand by each and every syllable in the presence of he Lord God Almighty.

So take your whining somewhere else. People like you who defend creatures such as O'Neal are a major reason why men of his ilk get free reign to engange in their campaigns of wickedness.

*************

As for:

"If the reporting person turns out to be one of the actors on JA's blog, then I would think that the judge would have to rule in favor of O'neal and let the matter proceed. Just my opinion, but Oneal has rights as well."

Not according to the law I cited. The law EXPLICITLY says the opposite. And if you disagree, then demonstrate from Oregan law why Cult Master O'Neal can win that suit.

Anonymous said...

Are your getting sued by someone else? Is there another case going on?

The Pastor and his family were investigated and they seem pretty far removed from the abuser other than being in the same church. By your blog entries, the matter is and was common knowledge at the time the juvenile was "running around" in the church nursery. In fact, everyone has a certain duty with knowledge. If the fact was already reported to law enforcement and the accused was unrestricted, what do you do? Barricade the doors?

You seem to lose sight of the fact that O'neal does not seem to have a problem in his family. His beef is that he (O'neal) was investigated and his privacy and liberties were violated because someone did and said something stupid.

Every post that you make concerning this matter is just driving the stake deeper and deeper and making it so much harder for reconcilliation. You are not doing anyone a service at this point and you should be ashamed of yourself for sensationalizing this very personal matter for a few web hits. Get a job. I just made a contribution to Oneal.

Anonymous said...

Change the name of this blog. Seriously. This is now SBC Watchdog. Why use FBC Jax when it is no longer specifically watchdogging the corruption at FBC Jax.

Arce said...

The report was made to the authorities and the reporter is protected. For the case to be continued, the judge would first have to find that the report as made was false, but it was not, since the perpetrator was arrested and convicted of the offense and that is recorded in the documents of the court that convicted the young man.

Again, the plaintiff in a defamation case must prove: (a) that the defendant (not someone else commenting on the blog) made the statement; (b) the statement was false; (c) the defendant knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false AND had actual malice in so acting; (d) the statement caused actual (not speculative) damage to the plaintiff (btw, post-suit damage caused by the suit is not counted here); and (e) the damage can be monetized. As far as I can tell, the plaintiffs in this matter (Pastor Chuck and his church) cannot prove any of the alleged statements meet a, b, and/or c. For example, the allegation of a false report to DHS is separately protected by law, so that does not count, EVEN IF IT OCCURRED, and there is no evidence other than the pastor's statement that it did, and he cannot prove that Julie Anne made that report, since that is confidential information. However, it appears from the records, that the report actually made was in fact true, and the the pastor was investigated for failing to report, not for abuse of a child.

The Other Tom said...

"I just made a contribution to Oneal."

Fools and their money are soon parted.

Anonymous said...

Something I thought of late watchdog is the idea of women judges in the church. I have heard of it said that by many fundamentalists when confronted by the story of Deborah and current legal climate that a woman can be a judge in a court of law. Why not in an assembly then. Overseers have a generally role of mentoring other males I still subscribe to that but in thinking over this in the past week with regard to being a judge especially in matters of church discipline there is definitely merit for women leadership to be involved.

Anonymous said...

Wade Burleson criticized "harmful" policies of the IMB?

Do you think grown men should be allowed to spew gibberish and call it tongues? If they want to do that, they can leave the SBC and join a pentecostal denomination. Wade Burleson criticisms were out of line, and he simply wanted to dissent for dissent's sake. I think Burleson would find a more comfortable home in the CBF.

Anonymous said...

"This is now SBC Watchdog. Why use FBC Jax when it is no longer specifically watchdogging the corruption at FBC Jax."

The church in this story is not an SBC church. The story of the pastor filming the ladies' restrooms was not an SBC church.

While a good bit of the reporting is about SBC churches (because they are the ones generating much of the crazy stuff going on), the WD's posts are not limited to that denomination.

Julie Anne said...

Anon 1:49 said a bunch of confusing stuff and I hardly know where to start, but how about here: "You seem to lose sight of the fact that O'neal does not seem to have a problem in his family. His beef is that he (O'neal) was investigated and his privacy and liberties were violated because someone did and said something stupid. "

Someone did and said something stupid? What are you referring to?

It's not stupid to report sex abuse of minors - especially if it has been known by the pastor for approx 8 months and the pastor has failed to report it.

Anonymous said...

JA - I am not biting. Oneal's complaint is nothing to do with whether a report was made about the juvenile and the abuse. His complaint is getting turned in as suspicious and getting investigated. He may not be as stupid as you would like to believe and have others believe. You are actually giving the honest bloggers a bad name. Most of these bloggers are honest...some a little bent, but they do not just out right lie.

Even now, and unwitting person would think that you are referring directly to Oneal as the perpetrator or having the perpetrator and the victim in his own family. I hope that you will apologize and amend your statements and clearly let everyone know that Oneal's family is just fine.


I think you have exposed yourself and to anyone that wants to study all of the verbiage that is out there, let them make their own minds up.

Last post on the matter for now. I will be waiting and following though.

Thy Peace said...

BTW SBC Watchdog is already claimed by WD.

The Other Tom said...

Since "Anonymous'" posting at June 3, 2012 1:22 PM, is little more than a batch of mindless gobledygook, I'll try to translate it:

Since the Big Bad Lady said MEAN things about Poor Little Chuck, Poor Little Chuck should sue the Big Bad Lady for as much as he can, because she is so MEAN!

Anonymous said...

I find this all impossible to follow. I can't figure out who did what. But I guess what makes it of interest here is that the situation got blogged about and then the pastor sued the blogger?

I guess this is all very old, yet very new. Church splits, disputes, etc. have always been; but now it can all be discussed on the internet for all the world to read.
Although that sounds kinda scary, the light does need to shine on some things that people would rather keep in the dark. So maybe it will be a mostly good thing?

And I think even if you blog about something, it's still fairly private. I'm assuming the vast, vast majority aren't reading. In fact, people can be extremely uninformed-several of the Miss USA contestants could not name the current vice president of the United States!

tikatu said...

Anon 1:22 6/3

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe O'Neal is the liar? That his hasty editing of his press release is in response to people pointing out that -- according to OR law -- someone who makes a report to their DSS equivalent will not be revealed, except under certain circumstances? In other words, he had no way of knowing who, if anyone, reported him. So his assertion that it was someone from Julie Anne's blog is a lie. Yup. A big fat lie. He doesn't know.

Julie, however, says she didn't do it, though she knows who did. How much more honest can you get?

Sergius Martin-George said...

Tom:

I like how you've given new meaning to the term "red letter Christian."

SMG

Julie Anne said...

The Other Tom: Thank you for that interpretation. My head was spinning. signed, Big Bad Lady

I don't think that there is dispute over the matter of who reported to DHS, but what was reported.

The friend reported the sex abuse situation involving the teen, but made no mention of any abuse situation involving the pastor.

Here is a quote from the pastor's court declaration when he came to my house unannounced with recording device to demand I tell him who reported him to DHS:

(the "she" is referring to me):

I visited her home and asked her what knowledge or part she had in maliciously turning my family in to the DHS for child abuse, and what part she had in reporting to the DHS that I allowed pornographic material to be distributed to minors in the church. She responded that she "had heard of reportings to the DHS," but not that I had been reported.

There you have it.

The part removed from the press release was regarding the pastor being an abuser. Again, the voluntary reporter never reported anything having to do with the pastor abusing. (And I confirmed this to the pastor when he came to my door, as he acknowledged in the court declaration.)

New BBC Open Forum said...

Off topic: So... the SBC gets their knickers in a knot over "racially-charged" comments and plagiarism, but the issue of clergy sex abuse not so much.

Wendy said...

Julie Anne,

"The MSNBC article which is the only article referenced on the church website (hmmm) states: 'allegedly touched one of his sisters inappropriately'."

Thank you for your courage in coming forward to the public with information about this abusive church. I'm sorry you're having to go through this absurd lawsuit, but I believe God will bring vindication and restoration to you, your family, and others who have been hurt.

I understand your point that the teen had not only touched his victims inappropriately but had raped at least one of them and that perhaps there has been minimization of the graphic details. One point I want to make is that ANY sexual abuse of a minor, regardless of the "type" of abuse (grooming, fondling, touching, penetration, etc.), creates serious, lasting wounds in the victim. Any type of sexual abuse is also a crime. O'Neal had a moral responsibility and legal mandate to report the abuse to authorities when he became aware of it. He also had a responsibility to protect the children and families in his church from the sexual predator.

Anonymous said...

See Mac Brunson still has some bitterness towards the Florida Times Union, one announcing he no longer takes the newspaper and two, refusing to meet with Mark Woods, a journalist whose late father was a Baptist preacher - all he wanted was to get Brunson's opinion on a matter - my bible says be ready to give any man answer when question. Talk about gun shy, that's good old Mac!

Julie Anne said...

Wendy, you are absolutely right - sex abuse is sex abuse regardless of "what kind" - the victim has the same recovery process and lasting scars.

What is deeply disturbing issue about the sexual case is that the defense is using this mother and her victim children to defend the pastor. I've already discussed the minimization of victims/crimes. Not only that, the defense has made absolutely no effort to conceal the identities of the victims. The pastor used the mother to write her court declaration in which the children are identified - - - all this is to defend the pastor. That is outrageous to me. Now the victims are permanently disclosed in public record.

It seems most attorneys would have sealed the parts of the document that identify the children involved out of respect for the victims and their protection. By revealing, the victims have essentially been re-victimized by their own pastor/mother in this case. In defense of the mother - she probably had no clue what she was doing and the ramifications of it, but this, too, goes along with the whole church abuse "system". Any mother who wasn't under the "influence" would say: this is your mess, you clean it up and come to the defense of her children. I feel so very sad for this family. My heart goes out to them. In the hoopla, they can't see clearly.

It's all about appearances, defend the pastor, to the neglect of the sheep.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: Change the name of this blog. Seriously. This is now SBC Watchdog. Why use FBC Jax when it is no longer specifically watchdogging the corruption at FBC Jax.

June 2, 2012 3:10 PM
__________________________________
Dawg - don't ever change the name. Let anyone who ever Googles "FBC JAX" stumble upon your blog and do their research on the church, the named men involved, the lawsuits, the land gift, the nepotism, the "night to stand with Israel" fiasco, and on and on. Those sheep about to be stolen in St. Johns County may be interested in all of this some day.

Anonymous said...

See Mac Brunson still has some bitterness towards the Florida Times Union, one announcing he no longer takes the newspaper and two, refusing to meet with Mark Woods, a journalist whose late father was a Baptist preacher - all he wanted was to get Brunson's opinion on a matter - my bible says be ready to give any man answer when question. Talk about gun shy, that's good old Mac!

June 4, 2012 10:30 AM
___________________________________
This just proves that this blog was NEVER about anonymous bloggers and "cowards." The point is if you are not drinking the kool-aid, you get ex-communicated, threatened and investigated if you are a member and ignored and criticized if you are a reputable journalist working for the Times-Union.(See Mark Woods and Jeff Brumley)

Can't you blind followers see now that all the talk about ignoring cowards and anonymous blogging had nothing to do with the church leaderships response. Is Brumley a coward? Is Mark Woods a coward? No. But the pastor says he won't read them or reply to them. Hmmm. Maybe good old bro vines should come in and spit at them in his next Pastor's conference sermon.

Anonymous said...

"be ready to give any man answer when question" is referring to always telling people in Whom your hope lies. I Peter 3:15

It does not mean we have to answer every question ever asked of us.

James said...

@NewBBC

I'm glad Richard Land is being disciplined for something.

Read how he treated Christa Brown: http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2009/10/hollywood-and-baptistland.html

James said...

The name FBC JAX Watchdog should definitely be kept. You should do a post about how FBC JAX allowed David Hyles to be a member.

Anonymous said...

Dawg - this JA character is really just over the line. I have seen apostates just rail on a pastor for not agreeing to a paint color in a Sunday School room. This whole thing is well beyond the point of ridiculous.

If you were in O'Neals shoes you would do the same thing as he is doing.

The lawsuit is the only way out. She is not going to shut up and leave everyone in peace until some judge educates her on the difference in free speech and slander.

Ya'll leave this poor family alone and please do not print names and back links to articles with that information. You know she is coming out with that next.

So destructive and irrelevent.

Arce said...

Julie Anne is in need of some help with legal expenses. If you can, please go to her blog and find how you can support her in this matter. Every little bit will help. And, perhaps, they will win the SLAPP motion and get her legal fees paid, so in a cosmic sense, it may be a loan.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Other Tom said...

Cult Master O'Neal's minions must be in a state of total desperation if the last few displays of their blithering idiocy is the best public defense of their Overlord they can produce.

Thy Peace said...

I would encourage all the people who see "hate" in this blog to read these:

Wade Burleson > Lessons in Dealing with a Disgruntled Member

Wade Burleson > Our Problem Is Authoritarianism and Not Legalism

Wendy said...

Julie Anne,

Thank you for filling in the blanks. I'm sorry to hear the mother has chosen to defend the pastor at the expense of her children--the victims. I agree she probably didn't fully understand the ramifications of going along with this plan. Having a son who has sexually abused/raped her daughters has made her particularly vulnerable to the pastor's manipulative exploits.

Unfortunately, I've seen this happen before--the mother protects and defends the abusive pastor/church. The price tag is high, although she doesn't see the cost yet. And I can only imagine the price O'Neal and his defenders will eventually pay. It may seem like the beat marches on for them, but the bible is clear that there are serious consequences for those who abuse and betray children.

Anonymous said...

Re "I have seen apostates just rail on a pastor for not agreeing to a paint color in a Sunday School room." at 1:14pm

I really doubt that.

I don't believe those urban legends about scandals over paint, carpet, or curtains. They make for "poor preacher, look what I have to deal with" sermon illustrations but they are just exaggerated nonsense.

Mary said...

One very important point that has been largely overlooked is the actual reason the pastor was probably investigated. A pastor is considered a mandatory reporter by law. This means that if he knew of sexual abuse for 8 months and did not report it to the authorities he was breaking the law and could potentially have faced prosecution. His only "salvation" was that courts are notoriously loath to prosecute pastors. In addition, if the family supported the silence, then they would be hostile witnesses and are really the only reliable source in court for what the pastor actually knew. The pastor, of course, would not self-incriminate.

New BBC Open Forum said...

@NewBBC

I'm glad Richard Land is being disciplined for something.

Read how he treated Christa Brown: http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2009/10/hollywood-and-baptistland.html


I remember that, and Land's behavior towards Christa was deplorable. My point was that the SBC chooses this to "discipline" someone over while they've ignored clergy sex abuse forever. I suppose something is better than nothing, but I'm reminded of the people who stayed at Bellevue through the whole Paul Williams flap and explained away that and a myriad of other serious issues but clutched their pearls and bolted out the doors when Steve Gaines changed the church mission statement from a long blurb Adrian Rogers wrote years ago to a short, 4-phrase, 8-word statement which was drilled into people weekly and printed everywhere. Prior to that you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who even knew there was a church mission statement, much less read it. I mean, that was their final straw? Sometimes I marvel at some people's priorities.

Anonymous said...

You know, it's entirely possible that NO ONE made a specific report about this so called pastor to Children's Services.

I suspect that during the investigation of the original complaint, Children's Services was concerned enough to start a second investigation of the pastor based on what they learned about him advising others NOT TO REPORT.

And it's also possible he's lying about the scope of the investigation of his own family. He doesn't seem particularly credible based on what I have seen and heard up to this point.