BGBC Lawsuit, BGBCSurvivors Imposter Blog

Impostor "True" BGBC Survivors Blog Site Created by Suing Pastor Chuck O’Neal

Julie Anne

Just when I thought I had seen it all, there is a new twist in the Beaverton Grace Bible Church (BGBC) saga with Pastor Chuck O’Neal – you remember, the pastor who sued me and 4 others for $500K for defamation.  Ya know, us moms always know when our kids are up to no good when things are too quiet around the house.  Well, things have been a little too quiet around here and the kids have been caught.  The kids aka Pastor Chuck O’Neal and “those with him” have created a blog using the domain name bgbcsurvivors.org.  They are calling themselves True BGBC Survivors.  Who or what have they survived?  Us – the ones they sued.  HAHAHAHAHA  I’m sorry, I can’t help myself sometimes and I must find some humor in this somewhere.


How did I find out about this new blog?  This morning, I received an e-mail from a reader mentioning “scripted videos”.  I asked for clarification and was told about the comment from Anonymous.   Here are the screenshots: 



Beyond the initial laugh about the idea of a man who calls himself a pastor and church members being afraid of two moms and beginning an impostor blog, the reality is that spiritual abuse still continues.  I’ve spent a long time on this blog talking about signs of spiritual abuse.  When (if) you go to the impostor site, I think my brilliant readers will be able to spot some clear signs. 

I’m sure you’ve seen children’s coloring books with hidden pictures, right?



I thought it might be a good test of our spiritual abuse detective skills to use that same concept and attempt to “find the wolf” or signs of spiritual abuse on the Impostor Blog.  But wait!!!  Let me give you some clues:   a master manipulator will suck people in emotionally – they do that by providing information that invokes an emotional response.  If you are able to separate yourself from that emotional tug, you will be able to more clearly see behavioral issues abusers use – the same behavioral issues that identify a:



WOLF!!!!!




I need to cut this short.  Tonight I’ll be singing at a Christmas performance.  I am praising God that He has revealed His truth to me, that His love never fails,  that God does not bully us around, but his slow to anger and rich in love.  




* * * * Update 12/14/12:  Deb of The Wartburg Watch blog has done an article on this recent BGBC situation here:  (click on title)

Chuck O’Neal’s Church Launches ‘True BGBC Survivors’ Website



 photo credit: akahodag via photopin cc

196 thoughts on “Impostor "True" BGBC Survivors Blog Site Created by Suing Pastor Chuck O’Neal”

  1. Sadly, he reveals far more than he realizes like a certain naked emperor of storybook fame. I hope they somehow find the Grace that adorns their church name.

    Like

  3. SMG!!!! You are right. I don't know if Fres knows about this survivor blog. Maybe he does because Chuck and Fred did have a connection behind the scenes. I wonder if Fred will share the same disdain for Chuck's blog as he has for other survivor blogs.

    Like

  5. I went to this site yesterday. It didn't take long to figure out who and what it was. Wow! Julie Anne, you are powerful indeed if they need to fake being victims. I hope I'm never on your hit list. (just kidding) You have a very powerful ministry here. Thank you. Kate

    Like

  6. Julie Anne, You have told so many lies that even you believe them now. How terribly sad. And how terrible it is that you use the Word of God to back yourself up. No one knows (because you don't tell them) that the reason this whole thing started is because Y-O-U were under church discipline. The name of Christ is disgraced by you and your foolish and prideful behavior.

    Like

  7. So bgbcsurvivors.org is an attempt on Chuck’s part to flesh out the picture for us, to tell "the true story" of BGBC. But I’m not sure his efforts are going to reap much fruit outside being a showcase for church members, a museum of justifications, revelations of facts that misdirect us from the real story of spiritual abuse. Will anyone on the outside care to watch his videos? Honestly, how many actually read Chuck’s voluminous press release? Still, if his intent is to clear his image, I’m willing to engage him, to examine "the true story" concerning the elders of BGBC. Presently, however, my first and second comments are still being held in moderation. So, again, fwiw and for safe keeping I’ll just drop my last one here. It's in response to something Dale Weaver wrote here: http://www.bgbcsurvivors.org/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-site/#comment-6. .monax says: December 12, 2012 at 5:03 pm Dale Weaver,you express how it is “good to finally have a forum to expose the lies being spread about [BGBC] and Pastor Chuck.” Your hope is that those outside your church “will take the time to hear the truth,” consider “the evidence,” and judge the elders to be ruling faithfully.I’m personally glad for this opportunity to examine further evidence. In fact, your comment above appears to provide further evidence against you—evidence supporting my conviction that BGBC is in possession of a sick and abusive eldership.As a faithful elder, a shepherd in the Church of Christ, What is your role? You remind us of what Hebrews 13:7 says: “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.”Question, Dale. In your above comment, How have you conducted yourself? What sort of faith, hope and love have you exhibited for the world to see? As you “warn the church that [Tim and Meaghan Varela, and Julie Ann Smith] have not been and will not be a blessing to any church they attend” you mark yourself as someone who is neither thinking or speaking from the heart of a true shepherd. Where is the love that “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor 13:7)?Do you realize your comment relegates these individuals to an unfruitful life of service for the Lord. Is such a sentence something a Spirit-filled shepherd should be pronouncing? Can you not believe something better for them, or for yourself when they were still with you?I personally know Julie Anne to be a blessed sister in Christ. She’s your sister too, if you are His. And for all of us who are in Christ—this is our blessed reality: that we bear fruit for the glory of God, that we live as blessed expressions of His good pleasure. Yes, we are personally responsible for cultivating the gift of life we’ve been given, yet as we faithfully do this it is the divine work of the Spirit Who empowers us to will and to do according to His good purpose (for we are His workmanship). My point is this: every one of God’s children is an absolute blessing to the church. God, Himself, secures this reality. For you to say differently is false, among other things.But yes, Dale, I will embrace your efforts here toward articulating the truth to outsiders. Yet I need to ask: Is this forum sincerely geared toward an open and true examination of your church? My last comment has been held for moderation for some time now. Will it post, or is this forum for BGBC members only? I’m ready to engage you, and I’d love to give you the chance to demonstrate that your not the Spiritually Abusive Perps you appear to be.David Johnson

    Like

  8. Tell me, anonymous, wouldn't one know they are in church discipline? Wouldn't one be brought before the Body when they are in church discipline? It never happened. That's been a consistent fabrication that everybody knows. Maybe I should post the church bylaws so everyone can see what never happened to us. And btw, church discipline for what? We had never been brought before elders for anything. We did however request meetings to ask THEM questions.

    Like

  10. I personally really like the bgbcsurvivors.org! I think it shows you to be the liar that you really are. They certainly have a lot of evidence against you and the Varelas.

    Like

  12. I would just like to set the record straight. Eddie Joe does not support any information against Pastor Kevin or Eagle Heights Church. People have been told to contact him regarding this matter. If you contact him you will find that he still respects Pastor Kevin Dunn and has nothing against EHCC. "when God is moving, Satan will attack!!"

    Like

  13. How nice for you to find a "survivor" blog where you can enjoy constructively commenting there on and on as your true self, perhaps even as a non-anon using your true name. (It does seem that most of the Anonymous comments here have been … oh … rather designed to agitate emotionally instead of contribute anything substantive to a dialog.) On the subject of the parallel world of the dot org blog, I did find it rather odd, though, that those who posted included the content of a card and emails written by other people. I thought I understood U.S. copyright law to be that the person who writes anything owns the copyright to it from the second it's been written, and a person who receives it does not. Curious … did the Varelas give written permission for the posters to use the material that they, the Varelases, own? The manner of posting said card and emails would seem to make it appear the dot org posters had the documentable permission of the Varelas to do so. So … if you wanted to be a constructive contributor on this survivor blog, and since you really like the dot org version, maybe you could check into that issue on our behalf and come back to enlighten us as to whether that legal assumption is correct, and if it is, how the posting of the card and emails is not an outright misuse of someone else's property/content. Or are the dot org posters just "righteous posers" or imposters? Will look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Like

  14. P.S. That was meant to be a reply to "Anonymous" of December 12, 2012 7:04 PM. But Fred Flinstone, being a "modernstonic family" man, isn't always up on technology. Sorry.

    Like

  15. How childish. How sad. If those responsible for that blog truly believe that Julie Anne and others are "the enemy", have they never pondered our Lord's words in Luke 6:28? Matthew 5:44? Romans 12:14-21?But, predictably, they will retort with Matthew 18:17, where our Lord says if a brother will not listen to the church, we should treat him as a heathen and tax collector. But assuredly, I tell you, Christ never treated heathen and tax collectors like this.No. He ate with them. He talked with them. He treated them with love. Care. Respect. In spite of who they were. If one won't listen to the Lord's words or follow his example, then what can be said of their church? Their elders? Their pastor? "Eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear" (Jeremiah 5:21).

    Like

  17. Thanks, David, for letting us know about the comments you have been attempting to post at the Impostor Site. I wonder what comments they will allow. Dale, mentioned above, is a long-time elder at the church. We had 11 hrs of meetings with the elders before leaving. The meetings were at OUR request – we were asking THEM questions. BTW, did you notice that Hebrew 13:7 verse Dale posted in his comment (http://www.bgbcsurvivors.org/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-site/#comment-6)? They are taught that verse at the Creepy Spiritual Abuse School (CSAS). That is a key verse that spiritual abusers use – they love to draw attention to "their" self-imposed authority over people. I did 2 blog posts about this particular verse where I tore it apart. Dale is using it in an authoritarian abusive fashion. Wasn't that nice of Dale to model this common abusive trait for us all to see? Obey Those Who Rule Over You, and be Submissive Part 1 and Obey Those Who Rule Over You and Be Submissive, Part 2

    Like

  19. Hey Fred – Nice to see you again. You know, I'm going to have to ask Meaghan or Tim if they gave written permission for the use of their e-mails/letters/cards. It wouldn't be the first time Chuck has aired personal conversations without someone's permission. I should ask some of my attorney connections, too. Thanks for mentioning this. About that .org thing – my husband just said to me, "so Chuck stole your blog name? What kind of pastor steals a blog name?" And yes, I got permission to post my husband's quoted words.

    Like

  22. So I read and watched the corresponding videos of about half of the blog posts on Chuck's blog… A couple of thoughts (in no particular order) ran through my mind as I did.1) His points and blog titles and content often did not make logical sense to me… Like that this blog is "dedicated to the destruction of his church and families"??? – really? This blog was dedicated to all topics surrounding spiritual abuse. Some application and stories are taken from personal experiences with his church, sure (since this blog was originally created since Chuck got Google to remove her reviews), but more and more often, my mother has been focusing on other issues.2) Is creating/editing quite a few videos to blast a couple of women using the time God gave him wisely and for God's glory?3) I think it entertaining reading/hearing the descriptive and extremely strong verbage he uses… It actually makes me not believe his side more.4) Cover a point, and move on… no need to go over the same story over and over and over… It makes your readers think that you don't communicate effectively, or that you think they are dumb – pick your poison.But finally 5)His blog seems to be an attempt to get more attention directed his way. Another thing I don't find Christ-like. So much for his humility.

    Like

  24. Yeah. I mean a whiny mom is to be expected. She's a whiny mom, after all, just like most women are whiny moms. But, an upstanding Man of God who declares the Whole Counsel of God (TM) from God's holy ordained pulpit, Lord's Day after Lord's Day, starting a whiny blog, whining about how other people have treated him and his family? I'm sure Mark Driscoll would have some mighty choice words for such a manly man.I'm sure Fred is rofl right about now.

    Like

  26. I just spent about 30 minutes watching some of these videos over at that site. Folks this is no longer funny, we need to collectively pray for this man and those at this very unhealthy church. For a "pastor" to set up a site like this shows he is unqualified and unfit for ministry. What normal pastor sues a couple of women that left "his church" , loses the case before it starts in an anti-slap proceeding and then goes on to do EXACTLY WHAT HE ACCUSED THESE WOMEN OF DOING ? The site actually goes well beyond stating an opinion and accuses several women of criminal acts, false police reports, lying to the police, slander, defamation etc. Didn't he sue for this already and lose ? Is the $60,000 that this has cost this "church" not enough ? Does there really need to be more litigation, does Beaveraton Grace Bible need to be financially massacred before this man gets it and just stops. Is he just a egomaniac, control freak or full out psychopath ? Check out his site and your guess is as good as mine.Watching Chuck and Beaveraton Grace Bible church self destruct.Andy

    Like

  28. David just read Julie Annes reply… "Imposter Site" "Creepy Spiritual Abuse School"Do you apply the same standard to her as you do Dale…If not what does that say about your character?Is she being a blessing by cultvating gossip?Question: Since when did the "Spiritual Abuse Police" proceed the authority of the Bible?

    Like

  29. The reason I have the no anonymous posting rule is because no one can tell who is who (just as you alluded to). So now you get a warning: if you leave your comment under the "Anonymous" name, I may delete it, especially if you are calling someone names. Secondly, you are being too vague. Tell me specifically what I have lied about and what evidence you are referring to. I haven't spent much time "there", but I could tear apart every post and find discrepancies in his version of the story. He does much speculation and uses that speculation as fact to present to his congregants who then go on and repeat his speculation as fact. When you read the comments, they use identical word phrases that we have previously heard from him. It reminds me of brainwashing.

    Like

  30. Thank you, An Attorney. i can ask my attorney about this. I've heard you mentioning this before when I was talking about a blog name change a while back.

    Like

  32. You nailed it Andy!!! Step Down Chuckie!! You weren't called to be a pastor you are making History though lol.. " The Suing Pastor" you'll be forever remembered as that.!!!!By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them. (Proverbs 14:3 One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless. A man of quick temper acts foolishly, and a man of evil devices is hated. (Proverbs 14:16, 17 ESV)He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, But he who heeds rebuke gets understanding. The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, And before honor is humility. (Proverbs 15:32, 33 The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord ; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished. Understanding is a wellspring of life to him who has it. But the correction of fools is folly. (Proverbs 16:4, 5, 22 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. An evil man seeks only rebellion, and a cruel messenger will be sent against him. Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs rather than a fool in his folly. (Proverbs 17:10-12 ESV)

    Like

  34. I was curious about the website posted on your previous entry. I didn't pursue it then. Wow!I guess he has a first amendment right to voice his opinion. The blog name and all that…I don't know enough about. It sounds like this is more for him and his church members to whine and vent over, especially if he's not allowing any outside comments. Very childish and passive aggressive indeed.

    Like

  35. It's very interesting. Blog started 12/2 and almost all comments began 12/11. Shoot, have I been doing it all wrong? I didn't know I was supposed to send out a memo to solicit comments.

    Like

  43. Make sure you use an appropriately modest sock for the puppet, and women sock puppets must not speak when men sock puppets are speaking, unless it is an update on the sock puppet pot luck dinner.

    Like

  45. Well stated, Hannah!! I wondered if someone who seeks attention got the idea that he needed to use the internet in order to have a wider audience–since the church has visibly shrunk in size over the past while.People who 'need attention' find ways to get it. Charming. Yes, I guess when you have that much time on your hands you need to put your energies into some creative dramatic productions–to draw people's heartfelt attention by hearing and supporting such sad survivor accounts!! Oh my, such a sad and woeful story. Is anyone listening?? It really pulls on your heartstrings. Not!!

    Like

  46. Julie Anne,"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."And you are not a "Dummy." You write well and your posts are well-edited.But a few people need some work on writing and editing:Anonymous 1 – * indicates a spelling, grammar, or punctuation error"If not* what does that say about your character?Is she being a blessing by *cultvating* gossip?Question: Since when did the "Spiritual Abuse Police" *proceed* the authority of the Bible?######Anonymous 2 * indicates a spelling, grammar, or punctuation errorRead it on *the* bgbcsurvivors.org. Dummy! That is if you can see past your self for just two seconds.BTW this is not the same *annoymous*.######No, this was not the same person, JA – this is "ANNOY"-mous! And that's not a lie, that's exactly what they typed. Thanks, ANNOY-mous for the LOL!We survivors all need to restore our sense of humor! 🙂 I saw the .org link when it was posted and felt they are "stuck in a rut". It doesn't bother me anymore when the word "gossip" is tossed out as an accusation – I realize it's a control tactic. I don't think gossip is going on here at .com – I'm finding healing here. And some humor! :-)"A merry heart doeth good like a medicine". Look it up, Chuck & friends.

    Like

  47. It's clear that Chuck is only publishing comments which agree with him.You'd think that he would want to vanish from the public radar now, but apparently not…

    Like

  48. re: "Gossip." One of my friends survived several years of shunning and worse from the directives of a supremely abusive "pastor." One of the things they tried to do was to silence him. Despite all that, he came through with his faith intact. And of "gossip," he told me, "If you're telling what happened to you, it isn't gossip."re: "Cultivating Gossip." As a research writer myself for over 30 years, I see that there is a biblical purpose to exposing to the light what lies in the darkness. After all, the New Testament writings are full of examples of documenting people who create conflicts, teach falsehood, misuse power and overlord their authority over others. If readers of the pseudo-BGBCSurvivors dot org blog believe that kind of spotlighting was only for the early church era, or only for the apostles to do, then certainly it is inconsistent for them to be reading the dot org blog – – because isn't that what it claims to be doing? Spotlighting those who allegedly harmed their reputation?I am always concerned that "citizen journalists" do their work well, show ethics and consideration for their sources and their readers, and correct errors in conclusions if/when those come to light. In these regards, Julie Anne seems to do her background research well, and she is raising topics that actually have to do with the spiritual well-being and protection of those who follow Jesus. Her research is relevant, checked for accuracy by crowd-sourced feedback, and on rare occasions corrected or updated. That makes this about cultivating truthfulness, righteousness, and hope.

    Like

  49. I believe that Julie Anne may have a copyright interest in the term "BGBC Survivors" and "BGBCSurvivors" and that the dot org entity is illegally encroaching on her interest, willingly and intentionally, which is an offense of the law in at least some U.S. jurisdictions. It is clearly an attempt to draw away people who search for the entity. The domain name can be challenged with the registry as well and that can be done without court action.

    Like

  52. Fred Butler and Chuck O'Neal had a connection behind the scenes? I'm not surprised, they're both MacArthurites. Butler is a fundamentalist like MacArthur and O'Neal. Butler goes after those who don't support Israel or who aren't young earth creationists. Butler follows MacArthur lockstep, as MacArthur is a big promoter of young earth creationism and Christian Zionism.

    Like

  53. Barb -You are so right. I've read accounts of a man who people say spiritually abuses and pastors church of SIX. Yet, his internet presence would make one think he pastors a mega-church.

    Like

  55. Steve – HA – Yes, I'm a whiny mom blogger – what do those guys call me? Discernment Diva? I would really love to know Fred's thoughts on this. He is a staunch defender of pastors, but despises survivor blogs. So what do you call a pastor who starts a survivor blog? I don't know that Chuck would care about Driscoll's comments, but it would be interesting to see MacArthur's comments on this. But then again, he didn't seem too concerned when Phil Johnson or Bill Shannon of Grace Community discussed the lawsuit with him. He likes Johnny Mac when Mac sides with him, otherwise, he digs up words from dead people to justify his lawsuit.

    Like

  56. The irony is that the only person responsible for the damage to Chuck O'Neal's reputation is Chuck O'Neal. But he just hasn't learned his lesson. He will only damage himself further with his new videoblog.

    Like

  57. Nicholas: Yes, I followed hits back to a site where someone posted a link to one of Fred's articles regarding my case and survivor blogs (he's done at least 5 blog posts on survivor blogs. He is staunchly opposed to them. On that site, Fred responded to questions and I noticed he had more information on our case than was public (it had just gone viral). I questioned him about that information a number of times publicly. Finally, he admitted that he had exchanged e-mail(s) with Chuck. I knew that had to be the case. Evidently Chuck e-mailed him privately to thank him for the way he was dealing with me – basically defending Chuck.With the exception of my phone call with Phil Johnson, I have found that 3 Grace Community pastors I spoke with would rather defend a pastor than consider that perhaps someone could be spiritually abusing – even after discussing the fact that there was a $500K lawsuit on the table. In their minds, people who complain about pastors are not to be trusted and that sets up a very dangerous situation for those seeking help. Where can people go if they are experiencing spiritual abuse if they are being labeled as the cause of the problems? Fred came to my blog to engage one of my readers who had posted a comment on his site and that led to quite a fiasco for a week or so on the blog. We have a bit of history and unfortunately most of it is negative.

    Like

  60. 🙂 What can I tell you, I'm a heathern. But I'm a FUNNY heathern. I'm tempted to go over and see what the Right Reverend has to say as a true survivor, but I don't want to give him the web traffic.

    Like

  61. The lower level MacArthurites you talked to simply did the natural fundamentalist thing, they defended their guy, as did Butler. When MacArthur likely examined the case, he probably decided that there was no way they could defend Chuck O'Neal or his actions and so MacArthur had Phil Johnson make a public statement against O'Neal's lawsuit. That didn't stop Johnson from taking a swipe at you and TWW with his "discernment divas" post at Pyromaniacs. And if it was aimed at anyone else besides, I am unaware of who.Like Butler, the MacArthurites at Pyromaniacs have disdain for survivor blogs, such as SGM Survivors.

    Like

  64. Nicholas – Bill Shannon is not a lower level dude – he's one the of the top GCC leaders. I also talked with Phil Johnson for about an hour. He was very nice to me on the phone and seemed to understand spiritual abuse saying something like, "if what you say is true, then yes, that sounds not right." However, 2 weeks later, I found that he had posted a link about my case on his Facebook page the day after our phone call. In that post, he discussed complaint blogs, it made me think that he may have been trying to appease me during our phone conversation (after all, I am a woman blogger who has a keyboard very close to my fingertips – best not to get a blogger upset, ya know!).

    Like

  65. Sorry, I didn't know about Bill Shannon. It shows, I think, that GCC was prepared to defend O'Neal until they realized that they couldn't do so without losing credibility.We could easily call Pyromaniacs a "complaint blog" because it "complained" about Michael Spencer, N.T. Wright, Mark Driscoll, the emergent church, etc. They're using double standards in criticizing blogs they don't like as "complaint blogs."

    Like

  66. It is only a violation of copyright law if the person claims the work as their own. If they are posting it so that others may see what they are criticizing and/or supporting then it is called "fair use" under U.S. law.

    Like

  67. Hi Julie Anne, I know it’s been awhile, I just couldn't help myself to write something…. I decided to watch a couple of Chuck’s videos! I am literally so embarrassed for this man. Is this what he has been doing with his time? Are the folks at the church ok with this?? First he has squandered close to, I assume, about a $100,000 in attorney fee's…(Not a good use of the Lords resources). And of late, spending large amounts of time becoming” Utube man”, instead of being in God's word studying. He just doesn't have a clue how bad he looks to the world. Not to mention having his own wife crying for the camera. Unbelievable! Well, we have been praying that God would lead folks out of there, and it's very clear that God has been answering our prayers….I just heard they are down to about 30-40 folks now. I sincerely praise God for that!!!! I really do feel for the O’Neal family, as I believe they are really hurting; but it’s been years now, they need to move on with their lives! — Don

    Like

  68. I think GCC defends pastors, period. They didn't like Chuck suing me, but still felt I was in the wrong. Bill Shannon and a volunteer pastor and also Fred Butler were more concerned about my marriage/family, etc. For them it was: shouldn't you be doing something besides blogging – I was out of line, I shouldn't be questioning elders, we had no business asking questions. I was not doing what they believed a wife/mother should be doing. I was the problem. Even when I told them story after story, it got twisted around back to me. The exception to this was my conversation with Phil Johnson conversation – but keep in mind, I spoke with Phil after my story was in the media and after the story was exposed on FBC Jax Watchdog and TWW – – – I think Dee had already spoken with Phil. At that point Phil Johnson from GCC wanted to clear John MacArthur's name in connection with this lawsuit – it really wasn't about helping me deal with my spiritually abusive pastor – it was all about their image because TWW had publicized the story. I have been shocked at the character displayed at Pyro blog. They allow very few dissenting comments and berate those who dare. I don't feel the love there.

    Like

  69. Well, it appears Christmas has come early for me. I was just thinking about how bored I am and need something to distract me; this should do the trick. I almost wonder if you should link to their blog from here. He is almost certainly tracking his web views. It might give him an even bigger ego if he thinks that it is achieving hits all on its own. If he sees how many are actually linking over from your site, it might help him see how delusional he is.Either way, I wanted to remind you that I think you are amazing and I am glad that you see this for what it is. Highly amusing!

    Like

  70. Also, I thought I would point out that this Bizzaro site is not a free blogging website. So not only is he wasting time, but he had to spend money to register the site and to host it somewhere.

    Like

  71. It's only amusing at first. And then you know the reality behind the lives of people he has affected. Abuse sucks. He's like a bulldozer going over everyone, including those who still remain. They just don't realize it yet. Zack is probably close to legal adult age now. He is a member there and has been posting comments on that site. One day he is going to have a reality check: that his very own pastor robbed him of his childhood friends and isolated him by their un-biblical use of shunning. That's going to be a tough pill to swallow.

    Like

  72. You are the first person to mention that publicly, Shakes. A number of people have sent me e-mails about that fact – – people are definitely taking notice that it is taking a concerted effort to get his blog going and running. Can you imagine the effort to record and edit videos? That's a lot of time involved. For what? He could have just left my measly Google review alone, but noooooo.

    Like

  73. Don – I don't know if they are capable of moving on. 30-40 is quite a difference from when we were there with 100. Wow. Maybe people are voting with their feet – – – – walking right out the door. Good for them. I pray they find a safe place where they can detox, be loved on, and experience the grace of God.

    Like

  74. I just deleted a post from "Anonymous" directing people to the Impostor's Blog. Although the link is referenced in today's post above, I'm not going to be allowing future promotion of that link here in the comments section. Thanks!

    Like

  75. I apologize, I only meant his repeated attempts to repair his reputation by damaging it further. The abuse suffered has been very real and would never make light of that.

    Like

  76. Oh, Shakes – no need to apologize. I laughed out loud the first time I saw it. I loved the Women of Mass Destruction reference. The imagination it takes to come up with such strong words – wow! The words are very revealing, too. But I don't worry about me – he has no control over me. I refuse to let that man control my freedom in Christ to say, think, believe what I want. It's the others – – – – those are the ones who get to me. Those are the ones who get me roused up – and ranting angry.

    Like

  77. Julie Anne, I just wanted to say how thankful I am that Barb Orlowski told me about your site. As you know, I went through spiritual abuse with my former church and, being able to read some of your posts and the dialogue here has helped me realize I am not alone. The information has been healing as it has shown me just how much abuse I really was exposed to and it has encouraged me in knowing there is hope in finding a healthy and loving community.I did go to the imposter site and listened to maybe 3-4 videos. For me, it seemed really weird, scripted and not really serving any kind of purpose. So, I won't go back there. There will never be anything posted there to encourage me in my healing journey.Thank you for taking a stand to expose abuse and to help those who are going through the same or similar kinds of things that you did. Please keep writing.God bless,Tammy

    Like

  78. OH LOOK!! More name calling. WOW that was insightful… Didn't see that coming. I must assume that if you had an intelligent answer that you wouldn't have sunk back to your base instinct of "I know you are but what am I?"GROW UP!Perhaps I'm in the business of character protection…. Hmm, MAYBE?Anyway I noticed no one had the courage to ANSWER the question.And don't bother with the "If you had courage you would not hide behind the anonymous name thing." Just be honest and answer the question and maybe the saints of God can be edified by all this instead of having the name of Christ drug through the mud AGAIN by all this senseless infighting. Besides it doesn't matter who asked the question. It's still true and the truth is what matters in the end not some ones name.

    Like

  79. Hmmm… Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?"I may delete it, especially if you are calling someone names."There are some terms that come to mind…. Now let me see. Is "Spiritual Rapist", "Wolf", or "Creepy" (just to name a few). Name calling?How about Hypocrite? Is THAT name calling or simply correct characterization?Must feel pretty good being able to simply hit the delete key anytime someone shows you up… Go ahead, you know you want to hit it. No one will know. Just you and your conscience….. Well maybe not your conscience.. He would need to be present.

    Like

  80. Oh goodness. This is both comical and sad. It makes it even worse that they advertise it on the main page of the church website. If I were looking for a church and had not heard about all that has transpired, that would cause me to look elsewhere without even looking at the survivor site. Doing a quick search-The new website in question was registered way back on April 18, 2012. The information in it was updated October 18, 2012. (This means information for the registry was made. It could be a name, an address, a phone number- anything on that line.) When it was registered, only a year was paid for the domain name, so it expires in a few months if it is not renewed. For those unaware, most domain names do not cost much, unless you buy special ones. A .org domain is not expensive. Depending on who it is purchased through, it can be of little cost.The one who registered the name says it was Chuck and it lists the church name, but gives the name of Stephanie with an email going to threadsketches.net. That .net domain name has been around since June 4, 2003. Stephanie Potts is the one who owns that domain and it appears she lives in Hillsboro, Oregon. It gives a different email contact with the name of the site (without the .net) on Yahoo.The new site is hosted by webmasters.com, who offers a domain name for free when hosting a site with them. That costs as little as $9.95 per month.So they sat on the site for months and didn't advertise it or appear to do anything with it until December or perhaps October when they made a registry change. I didn't bother to look much at the site. It appears they are after the Varella family with how many times I saw their names mentioned. I wonder even if they are hoping to be sued. Very strange for a church to do this. Again, it makes them look bad. It doesn't matter what "evidence" they think they have. It looks bad. The court saw the evidence presented by their attorneys. The court ruled against them. They should have let it rest, but instead are creating more negative publicity for themselves. Just like when they filed the lawsuit and they apparently didn't learn from that.Have any of you been paid anything on what was awarded you by the court?

    Like

  81. I had to look. Does he give actual evidence anywhere? He just keeps saying its lies but there is nothing a normal person looks for on a blog as proof. The piece on shunning is embarrassing. All about how he never uses that word then goes on to describe how they act out that word. What does he think shunning means?The strangest part is he doesn't get that not allowing controversial comments is the first indication that the blog is a waste of time. Who gets the most hits? The blogs that allow questions and opposing viewpoints. There's a reason for that.The intro to the video about his depressed, constantly crying wife worried me. But then she was well dressed and groomed and didn't have the dead look the seriously depressed generally do, so I felt better. And some comments mentioned what a great mom she is so she appears to be functioing in a healthy manner. Perhaps Chuck simply isn't aware of the symptoms of a seriously emotionally damaged person.

    Like

  82. Yes, H.U.G., if a pastor or church pulls the 'Persecution Card' then that somehow rallies the in-crowd troops to take a stand against any hint of persecution of Christians or Christian groups in America! This shakes down as a slick and beguiling tactic! It is a diversionary scheme from what really is actual.

    Like

  83. Wow, Lois, you are a wealth of information and you are also very insightful. I played the piano at BGBC and Stephanie sang on the praise and worship team (beautiful voice, btw, I always loved singing with her). She used to oversee the church website and probably still does, which explains her involvement with domain names. Hillsboro is a neighboring town of Beaverton. The publicity feeds the drive – doesn't matter whether it's negative or positive. It's not about learning anything because in their minds they are completely right and we are the enemy waging war against God, His church, wives, mothers, children. He never seems to say that we are waging war against pastors or men. Hmmm. I wonder why not? Is there some psychological explanation for that? I'm going to have to stew on that thought.Our attorney has not been paid yet (nor have we). A little extra Christmas money would be nice.

    Like

  84. I think he attempted to give evidence, but if you notice, he only showed close-ups of part of documents, not the whole documents. I haven't seen the piece on shunning. If they used Romans 16:17 as a reference for shunning, I believe he is using it incorrectly along with many other verses he manipulates for his own benefit. He used to teach people to be good Bereans, but for some reason there is a disconnect between what they read and what they allow their pastor to manipulate in their mind. Tonya is very striking and always well dressed. She probably is not so much like me – I frequently wear my custom flannel pj loungewear and I'm sure she never drives anywhere in her flannel pjs like I have been known to do. 🙂

    Like

  85. The strangest part is he doesn't get that not allowing controversial comments is further testimony against the church being healthy. It evinces a controlling and stifling spirit.

    Like

  86. If you check out the Beaverton Church webpage, you will find a Scripture reference from 1 Cor. 4:12-13 right in the middle of the page. It is under ‘breaking the silence’ and other similar thoughts.See what you think:“12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. …”Hmmm. See anything unusual in how this verse might be being practiced by this group?? Sure don't see much 'blessing', 'enduring' and/or 'answering kindly' in the mix like they reference.

    Like

  87. Man Anonymous you speak like you realy know the situation.Were you there? Do you know ALL the facts or just the ones that were presented to you by this site?Is it possible you don't see the whole picture?Is it ever right for a pastor to sue some one?At what point do you or a pastor say, "Thats enough!!" and fight back with legal means?Would you be mad if someone attacked your family for four years?Are pastors suppose to simply lay down and let people kick them in tell they die?

    Like

  92. [[My apologies for the previous deleted versions of this same comment. I have been up nearly 20 hours straight, having seen the midnight showing of *The Hobbit*, and kept messing up. But I thought it was important to get it right, and clear as possible.]]Pastor Charles O'Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church did fight back with legal means through the defamation lawsuit they as plaintiffs filed. This is part of what the civil authority of the court decided:"The court further finds that plaintiff [i.e., Charles O'Neal and BGBC] has not met the burden of presenting substantial evidence the defendant’s statements are defamatory."Judge Jim L. FunOrder on Motion to Dismiss, page 8Case No. C121174CVJuly 23, 2012http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2012-07-23-Order%20on%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf The evidence the plaintiffs presented did NOT meet legal muster. The court so decided. So, "Anonymous," are you suggesting that Judge Fun who presided over this case and dismissed all charges didn't know ALL the facts? Didn't see the whole picture? Didn't let Pastor O'Neal et al fight back with legal means? Or, do you not even accept the legal authority of this state court in which Pastor O'Neal and BGBC filed their suit?The plaintiffs had their day in court. The plaintiffs presented their evidence — and is that evidence any different from what is on their website now? — and the plaintiffs lost their case. Do you think you or they will somehow now win the case here on BGBCSurvivors.blogspot.org? Or will win it there on the BGBCSurvivors dot org/net/com domains registered to Chuck O'Neal in mid-April 2012 … not even two full months after Julie Anne Smith started her blog? Are pastors supposed to simply lay down and let people kick them in until they die? Pastor O'Neal had his day in court and the presiding Judge, Jim L. fun, decided on behalf of the people that the plaintiffs did not succeed according to the law in making their case that the defendants defamed the plaintiffs.What would the Scriptures now suggest as a resolution to his anger, since he has used legal means and the court found him to have lost his case? And what will you do with your anger?

    Like

  93. Anonymous – I am glad you mentioned commented (well, except for the fact that you used the Anonymous name as I have requested that commenters NOT do) . I can't remember if it was in a video or comment, but yesterday was the first time I saw the word Spiritual Rapist. Where did that come from? I don't ever recall using those words, but I did notice it two places on the Impostor Site. I think maybe one was in Charlie's "testimony". I think the other one was by Chuck – and this one may have been in a video. I'm wondering if he coined the term himself. And if so, I find that quite interesting.

    Like

  96. Julie Anne,I took a quick look at the Impostor Site the other evening. Your former church, and Pastor O'Neal, have definitely hit a new low. My first reaction (like that of many others) was amusement. Something like, "Aww, ain't that cute. They're pretending to be like Julie Anne. They actually think they can beat her at this game. Heh." Then, of course, I remembered what this means: O'Neal still has people under his thumb. And the fewer of them there are, the more they're probably hurting.What also saddens me, though, is the whole tone of persecution complex. I've watched none of the videos yet, but the little I read on the site was just appalling. More and more, BGBC is resembling (again) That Other "Church". The words and tones they use are almost exactly the same. "The critics are all liars! They're bitter, gossiping apostates! They're out to destroy us! We're the real victims here!"On top of that, they're shamelessly using a misleading domain name to make a 'smear site' against you and others — yet another of "Their" tactics. I guess they think they'll steal your traffic. Or that they'll somehow convince the public this way. But it's so transparent it's almost pathetic.Most telling, it seems that Chuck O'Neal is utterly unable to learn from his mistakes. And that will ultimately be his ruin, like that of cult leaders everywhere.Hang in there, sister.

    Like

  100. BTW: Wartburg Watch has a post on this latest BGBC development here. I posted a comment there and I am reposting it here because it is so revealing of what kind of person we are dealing with: Chuck O’Neal’s Church Launches ‘True BGBC Survivors’ WebsiteDuring the court process, when discussing the sex abuse situation, my attorney took very special care to never reveal the identities of the sex abuse victims. She was livid that Chuck’s attorney allowed identifiable information to be included in the court declaration which is public information. I included a screen shot of a court documentation on my blog that referenced the abuser and even though his name was made public in court documents, during the court hearing, and elsewhere on the internet, I chose to blank out most of the name. There were a few spots that I missed and someone who formerly attended BGBC contacted me requesting that I completely remove all evidence of the perpetrator’s name. I honored that request.Contrast that with Chuck. I haven’t watched all the videos, but saw 2 videos of the parents of the abuser/victims. (The abuser was a teenage son who sexually molested younger siblings, one of which was a baby – he was tried, convicted, and sentenced time.) In that video, I was told, the children’s names were named. The parents allowed Chuck to videotape them and they named their own abused children’s names. Here is the question – – – what parent in their right mind would publicly name their children who were sexually violated? The key phrase is “in their right mind”. This is manipulation. Chuck is using this poor family who suffered a horrific situation in their family for his own defense. All the other junk, his wife getting 5,000 business card to hand out with Meaghan and my name on it talking about how evil we are, the ridiculous copy-cat blog title, the war-like words – whatever. But I think this specific situation really shows the character. A loving shepherd would do everything he could to protect this family, protect their identities, but instead he exploits them for his purposes. I feel very bad for them because one day, they will be shocked at what they allowed this man to do. They will feel terrible for also victimizing their children by publicly naming them without their consent. That is some pretty thick Kool-Aid.Another point: in one of the videos, it refers to the convicted sex offender’s crimes as “inappropriate touch”. This was also quoted in the msnbc.com interview as well as other online sources. My attorney looked up the criminal report. This young man was convicted of serious sex crimes and over 20 counts (rape, etc) with multiple children (his siblings). This was stated publicly in court, yet he still minimizes the extent of the crimes committed. (Perpetrator was convicted and served time – not sure if he is still serving or not.)This minimization of sex offenses is most likely why Chuck was investigated by DHS.

    Like

  101. Does the April 18 date ring a bell for anything, or something a little prior to then? Do you recall when you first started writing about considering obtaining your own domain name? I remember it being discussed here but do not have the time to go hunting through the archives. If they obtained it soon afterward, then perhaps they were scared you might purchase the domain.They also have registered the .net domain by the same name. Done by the same woman on April 17, 2012 and info for the registry was again updated October 7, 2012. Again, Chuck's name is associated with it, with giving Stephanie's email. She is also listed, with her address, as the billing contact.The .com is also taken, but it appears this was done by someone else and the names are private. That was obtained May 15, 2012 through a different place. (There are some who buy up domain names when they see some are being taken, in hopes to sell it to you and make a profit.) So this one does not appear to be them.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)