Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

John Ingalls was never a bogeyman to those that knew him. This might have worked for a different generation. The trouble with SI is that anyone can go online and see for themselves.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

John Ingalls was never a bogeyman to those that knew him. This might have worked for a different generation. The trouble with SI is that anyone can go online and see for themselves.

Originally Posted by Indiana

With James Lee and Ron Kangas coming to Bellevue soon, wouldn’t that be a good time to explain to the saints why they should not read my material or associate with me?

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I only wish I could believe that that's how his audience saw it.

"In-groups" can be greatly reinforced by "out-groups" and "boogeymen". Steve Isitt can be useful to them in this way, as were John Ingalls and many others before him.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Exactly, score two points for SI. They don't want a church wide meeting, they were forced to do it. Calling SI "a man of death" is clearly an admission of defeat. And yes, by doing this the fig leaf came off and exposed them for what they are.

Originally Posted by Indiana

What is your scriptural ground for keeping me away from the fellowship of the church; and what are your examples of my supposed divisive behavior? No one has given me an explanation, and the church has not heard of an intelligent assessment with well-documented evidences explaining why I am not welcome to meet with the saints in the Local Churches. DCP has been quiet also, along with LSM. It seems no one knows what to say, without their conscience troubling them.

With James Lee and Ron Kangas coming to Bellevue soon, wouldn’t that be a good time to explain to the saints why they should not read my material or associate with me? One would think so, but these brothers know that truth has been my best defense; and their best defense has been to ignore.

Originally Posted by Terry

Can you call that "ministering life"? Technically we are all men of death as there was only one who was a man of life. How ironic Ron spoke such a word in South America and not in North America.
What I do not understand is with all the brothers and sisters in attendance, not one was bothered by this kind of negative speaking? Not one objected. Not one had the strength to say, "Ron, you are going too far!" Not one had the maturity to say, "Ron, you are going beyond your measure." Those that were aware of Steve's critique on Ron & Kerry's book would have the insight to say, "don't use this gathering for a personal attack".

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Calling SI "a man of death" is clearly an admission of defeat.

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes, I agree with what you're saying. These specific brothers want their way which is why I'd ask a leading question, what faith are you brothers contending for? Is the ministry the faith you're contending for? My point being when saints are so zealous for a man's ministry, the result is division. Contending for the faith becomes a specific ministry which separates members of the Body from having general fellowship according to their common faith in Jesus Christ.

Ironically one of the brothers in question made the same reference towards Steve regarding light and darkness. Essentially saying Steve has no way to get light as he remains in darkness. The brother should have asked himself anytime and especially after Steve filed the lawsuit, "could he have been wrong"? At one of the elder's trainings JK from Seattle spoke a word saying just because you're an elder deson't mean you're immune from deception. We should always consider the possibility, "what if"? "What if we are deceived?"

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Yet a church wide meeting is exactly what happened with Steve Isitt, and in other cases?
Calling someone a "man of death on the Internet" surely does not express "care for the brother", either in reality or in appearance, no?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Second, it is also counterproductive to have a church wide meeting, because then saints will be asking questions, like what did he do, etc. This also could cause you to damage and lose the saints on the back row.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So they want to smear someone with inuendo, because you can pretend that it is out of a care for the brother that you are not giving any details. The best way to counter inuendo is to continue as if nothing was going on. This will force the bully to explain and clear up the confusion. If truth is on your side this is what you want, an opportunity to speak the truth.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are asking "why", I am suggesting that they do not have the ability to discuss this as a matter of truth, but rather as a matter of getting their way, hence the impression of bullying. Sitting down with you would have no benefit, because based on the truth you are right.

Hence the verse "what fellowship does light have with darkness".

Originally Posted by Terry

I believe you have misunderstood me. There is no need for an widespread audience. Not even a collection of elders and deacons is necessary. Just two brothers getting together. Why not get together over dinner? If Steve erred in his writing, have the brother point out the inaccuracy. If you need witnesses, each ask a brother to join.
On your first point, being bully is not about who they tell but being assertive in speaking, while being unwilling to listen and respond.
Just like what happened in Ecaudor. Ron Kangas had much to say about Steve, but when Ron is confronted there's no response.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Try and look at this from the Bully's point of view. To call in some brother or sister that you rarely fellowship with to warn them of some other brother that they may or may not be aware of will cause more damage than good. Therefore they will try to do this with as few as possible, and only the ones they know that you know.

Second, it is also counterproductive to have a church wide meeting, because then saints will be asking questions, like what did he do, etc. This also could cause you to damage and lose the saints on the back row.

Originally Posted by Terry

What you've experienced is what Ohio has coined as spiritual bullying. These two brothers in particular spoke publicly and per JM privately too. However as soon as you confront them, there's no response just silence. These are the tactics of bullies. Be brothers and come together in fellowship.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Zeek, you are welcome. Speaking the truth these ten years has been a supply to me.

A brother who was setting up the concerned brothers site in 2006 asked me to do that timeline on the church history in the U. S. for the sake of ones contacting him with questions that a timeline might quickly answer. Also, he thought it would be of help to prepare others before they got into Deviating from the Path, a large, very informative book I had just completed after two years work, and had sent to him.

This letter I posted for this thread was sent by email to approximately 30 leaders in the Northwest. I speak to them according to principle, in a follow-up to the lawsuit, asking them What is their scriptural position against me and why? I do understand Carol's remarks about hoping for change, but anyway, I do hope for change and relentlessly pursue oneness beginning with these men who should know better.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Since SR had never shown interest in investigating my writings and coming into fellowship with me over them, and RK did not respond to my requests for fellowship, I did consult with an attorney, and did file a lawsuit against these men for defamation of character. I felt that perhaps this would be a catalyst for open, meaningful fellowship over their concerns about me, and my deep concerns about them and events of church history and its effects on the church life today. But I soon found out they were not interested in such meetings to ascertain truth. Either was SR’s attorney (an LC brother), who only did what attorneys do – look for a way out for their client. RK never did respond to his summons and I had no heart to chase him down to bring him into capitulation to a judge. The lawsuit did not work as a catalyst to bring these brothers to a table of fellowship, but it did serve to show me something about these men who could not face me. I have not heard from either one of them. Neither, of course, did RK nor SR respond to the idea of Christian arbitration. There has also been no public condemnation of me from them.

If indeed I am what these two leaders have said, please make a public announcement boldly to the church to explain yourselves and your position taken against me in Bellevue, Seattle, and Anaheim. What is your scriptural ground for keeping me away from the fellowship of the church; and what are your examples of my supposed divisive behavior? No one has given me an explanation, and the church has not heard of an intelligent assessment with well-documented evidences explaining why I am not welcome to meet with the saints in the Local Churches. DCP has been quiet also, along with LSM. It seems no one knows what to say, without their conscience troubling them.

With James Lee and Ron Kangas coming to Bellevue soon, wouldn’t that be a good time to explain to the saints why they should not read my material or associate with me? One would think so, but these brothers know that truth has been my best defense; and their best defense has been to ignore me.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Neither have I been given freedom to meet with the church. Why? SR and RK are not only guilty of defamation of character; but most importantly they have borne false witness against me in the church.

If indeed I am what these two leaders have said, please make a public announcement boldly to the church to explain yourselves and your position taken against me in Bellevue, Seattle, and Anaheim. What is your scriptural ground for keeping me away from the fellowship of the church; and what are your examples of my supposed divisive behavior? No one has given me an explanation, and the church has not heard of an intelligent assessment with well-documented evidences explaining why I am not welcome to meet with the saints in the Local Churches.

For ten years I have been speaking the truth about Local Church history, and there has been no Defense Confirmation Project assigned to counter my publications. Indeed, my speaking addresses without reservation the true causes of division in “the recovery” and does not itself cause it. I am not a divisive person. Even on the forum (since 2006), no one corrects or criticizes what I have said with regard to the unfiltered version of Local Church history. The history speaks for itself.

Either I am guilty or I am not; if not, then why is the door closed to me in the church?

With James Lee and Ron Kangas coming to Bellevue soon, wouldn’t that be a good time to explain to the saints why they should not read my material or associate with me? One would think so, but these brothers know that truth has been my best defense; and their best defense has been to ignore me.