Julie Anne Smith and her co-defendants have prevailed. Their pastor's attempts to sue them for half a million in damages because they dared to criticize their former church and pastor, have ended in shame and disgrace for Beaverton Grace Bible Church - and have piled on a debt of probably $50,000 in legal fees and court costs.Judge Jim Fun granted Julie Anne's anti-SLAPP motion, tossing out Chuck O'Neal's ridiculous lawsuit, and ordering Chuck and Church to fork over the money to pay for the defendants' legal defense.
And there ain't no insurance that will pay for this one. This money will come straight from the coffers of Beaverton Grace Bible Church.
Can you say "special offering"? Can you say "Double Tithe Sunday"?
Seriously, to a small 501(c)3 like BGBC this can be a fatal blow. Chuck and friends rolled the dice on this one, and he lost big time, and may have taken his church down with him. Too bad there weren't some elders/deacons/trustees with a backbone to stand up to Chuck and his cockamamie idea of suing the sheep. Too bad compensatory damages aren't required by the court for the anguish Chuck and his board of elders/deacons/trustees has caused to all of the defendants involved.
Kudos to Julie Anne Smith for her tenacity. Unlike her pastor, she has handled herself with grace and courage through this entire ordeal. Julie Anne has taken the heat, not shying away from the press coverage. She has used the platform given to her by this set of unfortunate circumstances to speak out against spiritual abuse, and no doubt she will continue to do so.
Make no mistake, Julie Anne is a trailblazer. She has won a very important case for religious bloggers who seek to share the truth about churches and pastors. Lawyers who represent well-to-do mega church pastors who are criticized on line are sure to take the judge's ruling to heart. As I said before, if O'Neal won, I believe we would have seen more of these lawsuits by pastors who want to shut up their critics who aren't good for their "business". The judge ruled that religious blogs critical of how pastors run their church and how they treat people, are matters of public interest, and opinions expressed about said pastors is protected free speech.
Here is a very important part of the judge's ruling:
"Plaintiff [O'Neal and his church] has the right to govern his congregation in the manner in which he chooses, and defendant Julie Anne Smith is authorized by law to express her disagreement with his performance of those activities. Consequently, the foregoing claimed defamatory statements are dismissed."
Awesome. Julie Anne did what she did, "authorized by law". Problem is, in the world of fundamentalist, authoritarian preachers like Chuck, Julie Anne was not authorized by Pastor to do what she did. Pastor didn't like Julie Anne's opinions. Pastor thinks Julie Anne's criticism was sin. Pastor got his hat handed to him by the judge, and Pastor's congregation has to pay the legal bills.
Here is the summary paragraph from Judge Jim Fun's ruling:
"In summary, defendants Julie Anne Smith [and other defendants'] Special Motions to Strike are granted. The court finds that the defendant's internet postings on plaintiff's website and defendant Julie Anne Smith's blog site, were made in a public forum and concern an issue of public interest. The court further finds that plaintiff has not met the burden of presenting substantial evidence the defendant's statements are defamatory. "
This is all made sweeter by going back and reading Chuck's "press release" from a few months ago, where he said:
"We have not gone hastily to court. For three and a half years this
group has been engaged in a public, church to church, and World Wide Web
defamation, showing their willingness to harm children, to harm wives,
to harm the church, and harm the testimony of Christ's Gospel. It is
BGBC's firm conviction that this cannot continue. The ministry of the
local church and the Gospel cannot continue to be hindered."
The loving pastor accuses Julie Anne and the others of harming children and wives, and even harming the testimony of Jesus Christ himself. Actually, Chuck, YOU are that man! The last statement above shows why Chuck and his men couldn't make the right call: their religious zealotry made them think their lawsuit was required by God himself to stop Julie Anne from "hindering" the church and the Gospel. In the fog of their religious confusion, they thought they were doing the very will of God.
As I close, I can't help but go back to the statement made by Chuck's wife when interviewed by KPTV, staring right into the camera and saying of Julie Anne and her co-defendants (while Chuck had a Cheshire-cat grin, see left):
"The only thing worse than a vicious woman is a group of vicious women." Mrs. O'Neal
I guess to Chuck and friends, they now have discovered there IS one thing worse - in their twisted minds - than even a group of "vicious women" who are "hindering" the local church and the Gospel:
One judge who can rightly put an authoritarian pastor and his cultish church in their place.
------------------------------------------
Other sites posting articles on Julie Anne's tremendous victory, and some quotes:
Julie Anne's blog: Judge's Decision
Wartburg Watch: Julie Anne Smith Prevails Against Her Former Church
"There can be no doubt that the major news outlets will be reporting on this story, which has garnered tremendous attention. I do hope that hyper-authoritarian pastors are paying attention… First there was Tom Rich (on the East Coast); now Julie Anne Smith (on the West Coast).Bene Diction Blog: Beaverton Grace Bible Church Loses Court Case Against Blogger
Yep, from coast to coast judges are ruling in favor of parishioners who have the right to exercise their free speech. It does appear that the internet is the modern day version of the Gutenberg Press which was a major contributing factor to the Reformation. "
"Some of the best coverage of this Beaverton Grace Bible Church bully suit has been by Tom Rich of FBC Jax Watchdog – another blogger who dared question his pastor and who also faced spiritual abuse and struggles in US courts."Previous Watchdog Articles on this Case:
Mother and Daughter Being Sued by Their Former Pastor - May 13, 2012
An Analysis of Chuck O'Neal's Press Release - May 17, 2012
Greater Love Hath No Pastor - June 1, 2012
Donate to the BGBC Legal Defense Fund - July 11, 2012
Wow what a country! We have a watchdog on the east coast that can sue his pastor who called him a sociopath and win. On the west coast we have a stalker that gets sued by her pastor for calling him a sex offender and he loses! Amazing.
ReplyDeleteNow WD go ahead and tell us how there are "miles and miles of difference" in these two situations.
Doesn't look like you as a blogger won to me. Looks like you can't ever post a derogatory comment against Mac again; AND when you Google FBCJAX, the church website is the first entry now, not this website.
ReplyDeleteAll just to get your stupid apology from him that I guarantee he didn't mean and probably considered a very, very small price to pay to get you to shut up about him.
Sound mighty bitter to me, Anonymous.
ReplyDelete:)
I laugh out loud each time I go to the comment section and see that an obsessed, delusional, TROLL has left the first comment.
ReplyDeleteDo they sit there in their parent's basement, snacking on Cheetos, waiting for WD's latest story?
Here's a tip for you to think about. When you lose, be man enough to admit it. Otherwise you come across as a kook (the kind that would attend this pastor's church).
"Doesn't look like you as a blogger won to me."
ReplyDeleteThat's because you are delusional.
"Looks like you can't ever post a derogatory comment against Mac again"
Again, delusional.
"AND when you Google FBCJAX, the church website is the first entry now, not this website."
Yeah, you are right. No one will ever find WD's blog all the way down there in the #2 position.
"All just to get your stupid apology from him that I guarantee he didn't mean"
So, you are saying that Mac lied from the pulpit?
"probably considered a very, very small price to pay to get you to shut up about him."
Except for the fact that he hasn't shut up about him AND he was forced to give a humiliating apology.
After so many humiliating defeats, I can see how you would prefer to live in an imaginary world.
FIRST OF ALL people I am on WD'S side and have been from 2007. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteSECOND OF ALL, I haven't seen one post on MAC since the apology.
THIRD OF ALL, YES HE LIED. DUH!
Not a troll nor delusional.
"Now WD go ahead and tell us how there are "miles and miles of difference" in these two situations."
ReplyDeleteLook what extremes people are willing to go to avoid admitting that they are wrong.
I guess that's why we have the court system. So, that these nuts are put in their place.
"FIRST OF ALL people I am on WD'S side and have been from 2007. Thank you!"
ReplyDeleteWith friends like you...who needs friends?
"SECOND OF ALL, I haven't seen one post on MAC since the apology."
Actually the post about the apology was after the apology.
"THIRD OF ALL, YES HE LIED. DUH!"
Of course, you have no way of knowing that. But if that is true, that doesn't bother you?
"Not a troll nor delusional."
Then stop using ALL CAPS and making unfounded statements - like TROLLS do.
The settlement by Mac was confidential, but likely included $$$, at least to cover legal fees, but probably more.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't the only blog Anonymous has left the same comment on. He's visited The Wartburg Watch as well.
ReplyDeleteWere I a member of the church, I might feel that the pastor would have to pay any fees on his own--unless I had authorized him to sue on behalf of both the church and me.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see if the fees actually get paid as the court apparently ordered.
Tom - excellent article. We would not have known about this significant victory for free speech unless you posted this. It just shows that judges are fair and impartial and will render the fair and just decision, even if it "hurts" God's man or "the church." This country is a country of laws. We live by the Rule of Law, not by superstition or coercion by religious leaders who try and tell us God will get us if we differ with them.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, still, even with court decisions and apologies and settlements paid, some gullible sheep still can't see what is going on. I believe a pastor could sexually molest the church member's own child and they would rationalize it, deny it, or cover it up. All for the sake of the invisible, magic kingdom.
Here's a quote from Steve Hewitt's article: "Why the Church is Dying in America"
ReplyDeleteEvery year, 2.7 million church members fall into inactivity. This translates into the realization that people are leaving the church.
From our research, we have found that they are leaving as hurting and wounded victims—of some kind of abuse,disillusionment, or just plain neglect!
Is it a victory to take money from God's Church?
ReplyDeleteIs it a victory to write blogs that tear down God's Pastors?
Is it a victory with the Lord's name dragged thru the mud?
The whole bunch of you should be ashamed...Watchdog, you started all this mess and God is not pleased.
Anonymous also left this ignorant comment over on Julie Anne's blog:
ReplyDeleteWow what a country! We have a watchdog on the east coast that can sue his pastor who called him a sociopath and win. On the west coast we have a stalker that gets sued by her pastor for calling him a sex offender and he loses! Amazing.
It's perhaps good that Anon reiterated these lies here and there so they can be properly refuted. .
The truth and the American way always wins out. Keep up the great work WD. Each new day we learn more about mega's and what they expect and require of their deacons. Some may just now realize we are suppose to be our brother's keeper, but many hate that subject matter.
ReplyDeleteGreat news for Julie Anne and all Americans who value our Constitutional liberties. If Cult Master O'Neal had won this case, the First Ammendment would have become totaly worthelss.
ReplyDelete"Is it a victory to take money from God's Church?"
ReplyDeleteAren't you forgetting that the pastor sued the former church member?
If he hadn't sued, he wouldn't have had to pay a thing.
So, who actually took money from God's church?
"The whole bunch of you should be ashamed...Watchdog, you started all this mess and God is not pleased."
ReplyDeleteGod is pleased.
The TROLL is not pleased.
We would not have known about this significant victory for free speech LOL The judge avoided free speech. Had the judge made a ruling on freedom of speech, he would have found that it is not a violation of the defendants freedom of speech and would have had to allow the suit to go forward. She has the right to say whatever she wants and he has the right to bring suit. The judge said that the plaintiff failed to prove 2 out of the 3 criterion.
ReplyDeleteI knew where this was going and I think that it is pathetic that the Anti-Slapp is for anything other than protecting free speech. If you read the history of the Anti-Slapp, it was never intended to stop a lawsuit unless the matter was significantly and obviously a matter of free speech.
This one could have been very interesting...not a first amenment case though.
"Judge Jim Fun granted Julie Anne's anti-SLAPP motion, tossing out Chuck O'Neal's ridiculous lawsuit, and ordering Chuck and Church to fork over the money to pay for the defendants' legal defense."
ReplyDeleteLOL
Girls just wanna have Fun!
(- especially girls who have been maliciously shunned & sued.)
"The truth and the American way always wins out."
ReplyDeleteNot always.
But in this case it did.
who seek to share the truth about churches and pastors.
ReplyDeleteSo........how do you know if JA was being truthful about the nursery?
The judge said her statement was opinion, and therefore, not true. The judge, advised that a reasonable person should be able to distinguish and determine that her writings held no credibility. JA's major defense was that she was in no position to write a truthful statement about the adequacy of the nursery.
..grace?
com'on dog, please. She is about as graceful as a pack of buzzards going in on a two day old road kill.
The irony for you is that you and the plaintiff oneal share commonality in the assertions of each of your cases. In your case, the pastor should have to pay for calling you a sociopath. We all know that the pastor is not an expert and his statement was opinion and therefore untrue.
In Oneal's case, he thought that JA should have to pay for saying he was negligent in reporting a pervert and calling him a wolf and on and on.
Anonymous 9:05
ReplyDeleteDoes having an opinion mean that it is not true? For example, I believe that the pastor was ill-advised in his lawsuit and he was detained to lose. I stated that opinion to Julie Anne a number of months ago. That is an opinion and it turned out to be a true.
I am so proud of both Tom and Julie Anne. They have carried the water for the rest of us bloggers and I am grateful to them. Thank you both.
Winning a lawsuit is great. If people would leave these angry-pastor churches in droves it would be better. Put them out of existence.
ReplyDeleteThat is an opinion.
ReplyDeleteIf I said that "He was drunk while driving through the mountains with a car load of children." I crossed the line. Either I can prove the statement is true or I cannot prove the statement and it is therefore false.
Congratulations to you Julie Ann. I had NO doubt this would be tossed. NONE whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteAS I said way back in 2007 as my blog Headline when I exposed those within the Baptist Mafia;
“The Internet, is The Great Equalizer”
I guess those within the SBC and especially the Georgia Baptist Convention Baptist Mafia have some really smart lawyers because I tried to get them to SLAPP me without success. I wanted to expose them in a public forum in front of a Judge and 12 jurors…I really did.
Again, way to go!!!
Ok Baptist Pastors, who is Next?
Anon 11:28 - slander and defamation is a bit complicated, but you are right on one part. I've learned a bit about this over the past 3 years. I'll explain what I know in legal layman's terms, maybe one of the lawyer commenters can elaborate:
ReplyDeleteTo be defamation, it must be shown to be a false statement of fact. For instance, if I call you a pompous ass, you might be one, you might not. It is an opinion, not a statement of fact because no one really knows what a "pompous ass" is. There is no clinical definition of "pompous ass". Clearly opinion.
Reading the judge's ruling, it seems he clearly saw all of Julie Anne's statements as her opinion of how Chuckster was running the church. Even the comments about a sex offender having access to the nursery - all opinion, and no assertion of illegal activity.
On the other hand, if Julie Anne had called her pastor a "sociopath", or called him a "sociopath and mentally unstable", or "a sociopath, mentally unstable, and obsessive compulsive", those might rise to the level of "defamation per se", that is, the statements are assumed to be damaging. To utter to someone that another person has a terrible sexual disease, or a mental illness, when in fact they don't, that crosses the line. Made worse, if they were actually uttered with malice and the person who utters them admits that they did so with malice, well, their goose is cooked.
This was a no-brainer. The lawsuit never should have been filed.
Julie Anne won fair and square.
Amazing spin WD. Yeah, she was bound to win that one. I think the judge would have probably ruled in the same manner on the sociopath deal as well. Brunson words were in wrath and and made in a public forum and most reasonable people saw right through it. I know that I did. I never thought you were a sociopath because of what the pastor said about you.
ReplyDeleteSorry you own this one. You were going after Mac for the same reason that oneal was going after ja. No real difference. :>
My understanding of Mac Brunson's "sociopath" comments were made to a news paper reporter Jeff Brumley. And I believe Jeff Brumley asked if Mac would take back those words and Mac refused.
ReplyDeleteThere is an important difference in the cases. In Julie Anne's case, the decision came from the court, following suit by the pastor and church.
ReplyDeleteIn the WD case, there was a settlement and the case was dropped as a result of the settlement. It is obvious that the settlement required Mac to apologize, which he did, and probably to pay the WD enough to cover his legal expenses. What Mac said was not an opinion but a statement of a particular mental diagnosis that he is not qualified to make, coupled with another slur. And Mac would never have known the identity of the WD without illegal actions by a member of his inner circle.
I believe Mac has apologized to Tom for making his remark.
ReplyDeleteSo what is your point? It is okay to say bad things about people in a well published blog, but not to a newspaper journalist?
Nice try Peace.
Attorney.....
ReplyDeleteIf a psycologist told me that someone was crazy, I would take him literally. If my preacher told me someone was crazy I would take him figuratively. Reasonable people have the ability to discern, according to J.Fun.
I think that when a pastor calls someone a sociopath, it carries a little more weight than if a regular person said it. Pastors are thought to know something about counseling; plus a pastor, in his position, would be expected to have more self-control when speaking, than just a regular guy. I mean, you'd expect a CEO of a large company to be more circumspect with words than the average joe.
ReplyDeleteWhat I've been getting from my attorney is there are 2 parts of defamation.
ReplyDeleteThe first part is what Watchdog talked about above. But it goes even deeper than that. They would have to prove that I intentionally told a lie/falsehood.
Here is the tricky part. If I believe something to be true, when in fact it is not true, it cannot be labeled as defamation. Defamation must show that I intended to say a falsehood/lie.
The second part of defamation has to do with malice. They have to prove that I intended to do harm. In other words, they have to have some proof of my heart's intent.
To win a defamation case, the defense must prove both intentional falsehood AND malice. This is why defamation cases rarely succeed.
In my case, every single phrase did not even make it past the first level of showing intentional falsehood. In other words, the judge deemed that all of my statements were opinion or truth to me. Not one thing could be proven as an intentional lie. Consequently, there was no need to take the phrases to the next level to determine if there was malice since defamation requires both levels. It was already dismissed.
Thanks Julie.
ReplyDeleteThat is why it is called FREE Speech.
Just like things a Pastor says from the Speaker platform is considered free speech to them, so is what bloggers and others have when they post articles and opinions concerning public matters concerning issues within a church.
Now please feel free all to expose TRUTHS about those who need to be exposed!
The judge did what he had to do. According to Mr. Fun, you have the right to say anything you want, even if it is an absolute lie...because you have no credibility and reasonable people should be able to discern and dismiss. No reasonable person should rely on you or your words. I really do not see this judgement a condonement of your coarse behavior. Rather it seems a bit of an indictment of your worthless opinion. I really feel sorry for you. Enjoy your victory.
ReplyDeleteChuck and his friends are grasping at straws. With friends such have commented on this blog, Chuck does not need any enemies. For his friends undermine him in both his thinking and actions. Sore losers.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, Anon 10:32,
ReplyDeleteI am going to enjoy my victory. In fact, I'm working on my playlist right now: it's starting with Celebrate (Kool & the Gang) and then Queen's "We are the Champions". Any more suggestions?
Why is anonymous 10:32 so afraid to reveal who he/she is? Come out of the closet and speak.
ReplyDeleteEd Chapman
Anon 7/28 10:32 pm
ReplyDeleteThat is not what the judge ruled and that is not the law.
The ruling is much more complex and there was no ruling on whether Julie Anne's comments were the truth. Rather the judge said that the comments were statements of opinion rather than statements of fact, and, FOR PURPOSES OF WHETHER THEY ARE DEFAMATION, whether they are true or not is irrelevant.
The Biblical rule is that it takes two or more witnesses, and more than one person has publicly stated that Julie Anne was telling the truth about the pastor and the church, including former members and relatives of members.
If you want to identify a defamer and liar in the case, go look at the occupant of the pulpit at Beaverton Grace Bible Church, who has invented stories about former members and the reasons they left the church.
http://news.yahoo.com/mississppi-church-refuses-marry-black-couple-205218322--abc-news-topstories.html
ReplyDelete... "pastor told them they would have to find another venue -- because they were black."
"There has never been a black wedding at the First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Miss., since its founding in 1883. According to Pastor Stan Weatherford, some church members objected so strongly to breaking that precedent, they threatened to oust him from his pastorship."
"Rather than risk his job, Weatherford, who is white, said he decided to marry the pair at a black church down the road."
This couple were regular attenders at the church and planned on becomming members after their wedding
Well, I guess that black couple now know what at least a few of their fellow church members really think about them.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Pastor Weatherford should had married them there at FBC. I also do not think he was trying to save his job. This church is going to have some major internal issues over the next few months and he has not hidden his opinion on how he feels and what some have done is wrong. He is not trying to sweep it under the rug. In the end if they do not do the right thing I expect to see him give his walking papers. Yes he is "white" and he is probably not happy with the choice he made not to have the marriage there and lets not sell this man short yet because this whole issues is not over yet. Right I looking for a statment from the local, state, and national levels. We as SBC need to be vocal on this just as much as we are on other issues.
ReplyDeleteAlso make sure you read this about FBC Crystal Springs if you have read the other articles that are out there. Go look at the comments at the end.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.clarionledger.com/comments/article/20120730/NEWS/207300323/Crystal-Springs-pastor-Mississippi-church-storm-after-turning-away-black-couple-s-wedding
The lady in the picture looks like a mind-controlled zombie.
ReplyDeleteOff topic. FBC Crystal Springs Mississippi refused to marry a black couple. I think the SBC should kick this church out, don't you? After all, they have no problem kicking a church out that calls a woman pastor; they should have no problem kicking out a church that's racist!
ReplyDeleteBe Careful what your church plans to do for entertainment.
ReplyDeletehttp://doctore0.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/charges-filed-against-church-in-mock-kidnapping/
A personal note from Pastor Chuck: " It has been my privilege to pastor Beaverton Grace Bible Church for over twelve years. As an American patriot and a Christian pastor I staunchly support our First Amendment rights. As a husband, a father, and a pastor I stand by my right and the right of every American citizen to defend themselves, their families, their churches, their secular organizations, and their businesses from World Wide Web Internet assaults consisting of false criminal accusations and character assassination of the worst kind. "
ReplyDeleteFollowed by 21 reasons why he was right.
beavertongracebible.org/statement.html
Oy vey! Chuck is digging a bigger hole to bury himself and his church. Very sad.
ReplyDeleteHypocrite Pastor Chuck O'Neal
ReplyDeleteexercising his right of free speech ?
7/4/2008
"We celebrated Independence Day by exercising our free speech liberty at the Portland Jehovah's "
www.sermonaudio.com/galleryvideo_details.asp?image=gr-7408155951-5.jpg
www.sermonaudio.com/galleryvideo_details.asp?image=gr-740816843-6.jpg
How he can hound others , but don't let one hound him?
I think you should change the article name to:
ReplyDeleteLawyers 4; Bloggers 0; Pastors 0;
No one gets paid except the lawyers, unless you put a paypal donate button up.
"No one gets paid except the lawyers, unless you put a paypal donate button up."
ReplyDeleteWD got paid - so you are just factually wrong.
Plus, it's not about money. It's about freedom.
So really, everybody wins.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Watchdog, speaking of bloggers, this should give you some material to work with. I can't wait to hear your review.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting church conference about the government held in Dallas-Fort Worth/ Sorry, no Ed Young...:D
http://lifetoday.org/undergodindivisible-friday/
Another Pastor has been fired for having sex with a 16 year old teenager and taking her across state lines to have sex with her. Jack Schaap who was Pastor of what once was once the largest church in America First Baptist of Hammond In. Jack Schaap is the son-in-law of the former Pastor Jack Hyles who was also involved sexually with his secretary.
ReplyDelete"Folks, Stick with Us, Please"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=oFOWhUrRv0E
Wee's all sin a bit...
That so we can clean up this place and any mention of Jack on the internet
FBI was involved, as he had (allegedly) seduced a 16 year old.
Outside during a fire drill Dr. Schaap challenged a group of girls to hit him with a snowball. (gone)
http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2012/03/a-snowballs-chance/
10 year anniversary recognition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNyM-amltk
Promoted Rap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMk2F-KLYkQ
Apparently he should have taken the job with his dad, but threw his life away serving god ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y3_rXMbfGc&list=UU9JbgahxffAAH2o-RBUlTIg
Give me that old time religion , its good enough to please.
Is it any wonder
fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2012/07/critique-of-creepy-and-unbiblical.html
"The deacon is one who is to help create and preserve harmony in the church. He should be able to have and to maintain the reputation of keeping in confidence those things which should not be discussed openly. He should be wise and discreet. "
"He should see that his duty is to lift up the hands of the Pastor..."
"....and to work positively and with loyalty under the Pastor's leadership."
What more are these churches hiding, that only the FBI is able to penetrate their secrets?
Reverend Schaap was fired. Is that all? Is he in jail for statutory rape and transporting a minor across state lines for immoral purposes? He is the worst kind of sex abuser...a person of percived spiritual power and influence, using that to take advantage of vulnerable girls. May he rot in jail before he burns in Hell.
ReplyDeleteMore reasons people are doing "Home Church" these days:
ReplyDeleteIndiana megachurch fires pastor amid police investigation (Hammond, IN)
A northwestern Indiana megachurch has fired its pastor amid a police investigation into the independent Baptist congregation and a college it operates.
The Deacon said
ReplyDelete"Folks, Stick with Us, Please"
http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=oFOWhUrRv0E
Wee's all sin a bit...
That so we can clean up this place and any mention of Jack on the internet
FBI was involved, as he had (allegedly) seduced a 16 year old.
Outside during a fire drill Dr. Schaap challenged a group of girls to hit him with a snowball. (gone)
http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2012/03/a-snowballs-chance/
10 year anniversary recognition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNyM-amltk
Promoted Rap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMk2F-KLYkQ
Apparently he should have taken the job with his dad, but threw his life away serving god ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y3_rXMbfGc&list=UU9JbgahxffAAH2o-RBUlTIg
Give me that old time religion , its good enough to please.
Is it any wonder
fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2012/07/critique-of-creepy-and-unbiblical.html
"The deacon is one who is to help create and preserve harmony in the church. He should be able to have and to maintain the reputation of keeping in confidence those things which should not be discussed openly. He should be wise and discreet. "
"He should see that his duty is to lift up the hands of the Pastor..."
"....and to work positively and with loyalty under the Pastor's leadership."
What more are these churches hiding, that only the FBI is able to penetrate their secrets?
Pastor Jack Schaap, View of Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Z0tIZjjoo
"Don't you worry about your pastor being rattled..."
"Ask Adam what he thinks about getting his theology from a woman"
"I didn't follow a woman into ministry" but he got his job because of a woman and he followed one of them, that outed him from the ministry.
Off Topic:
ReplyDeleteI understand a majority of the evangelicals are Republicans. But you cannot ignore this tithing related story.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/08/fired-pastor-jack-schaap-demonstrates.html#more A new subject for you WD. It's pitiful.
ReplyDeleteHey man,
ReplyDeleteI click on page ago and got redirected to one called holiebullies or something like that. It looks exactly like your page and it is one page you donot want to be associated with. It might of been a glitch.
Does Dave Hyles really attend FBC of Jacksonville?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it sad that so called Christians want to tear down each other with blogs like FBC Jax Watchdog?
ReplyDeleteThis Blog reminds me of the Kiss of Judas and the Fruit in the Garden.
It looks right and seems right but is rotten to the core.
You are one sick puppy.
Did anybody at church today catch the slip that Mac Brunson made today about soul winning. He said I wonder how many of you go soul winning, then a second of silence then he said at work.Apparently for a second he forgot he did away with organized soul winning because he said that didn't work anymore, instead the only way to reach people is through television, so now Mac is on tv about 4 times on the weekend, but if you still go to First Baptist you will notice on Sunday mornings we don't have the people coming forward to get saved like we use to when we had organized visitation. Maybe just a coincidence.
ReplyDelete"You are one sick puppy."
ReplyDeleteYou are one repetitive TROLL!
Come up with a new saying.
That one is getting old.
But the cult of Chuck O Neal is still going strong, from what I hear. Shunning has separated families, and whatnot. Insanity.
ReplyDelete