Truth is the best defense and my fellowship

[Indiana]

When doing a search on my name, Steve Isitt, recently, immediately one very positive document appeared toward the top, My Experience in the Local Churches; and one negative one appeared at the very top, Ron Kangas’ public word from Ecuador declaring to leaders in South America that I was a “man of death” and “one of the most evil speakers on the internet”. I called his home in 2009 to discuss this public speaking with him and I left a message for him to give me a call. There was no return call.

I then wrote him a letter expressing my desire to speak with him and waited for his response. None came. I had heard also about the public speaking of another leader who referred to me as a “wolf among lambs” (SR in New Zealand), and also among brothers agreed that I was “the embodiment of the accuser of the brethren”. This same leader had been telling saints in groups or in one on one conversations over a ten-year period that I had “slanderous” websites up on the internet and forum posts that “slander” several leaders in the churches. In July 2010, when he spoke this way to a brother, I received an email from this brother denouncing me and my websites. I then shared this email with another Local Church brother, who advised me to get an attorney, since he knew the ten-year history of Local Church leaders’ resistance to the truth in my writings and the unwillingness they had to come to a table of fellowship. He also knew of the propensity among leaders and saints toward “condemnation before investigation”, as exemplified in JM's email.

Email: From: JM
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010

Email Triggering Lawsuit

Steve,

I asked Sherman about you and your history in the church in this area. I was appalled to find out that you have not only written one book (which I knew about but never read), but also that you maintain two websites full of slander regarding the Lord’s Recovery, and specifically regarding at least eight coworkers and several elders.

Hearing about evidence such as a nearly two inch stack of emails that you wrote regarding Joel Kennon, and the fact that you maintain much contact with ones who oppose the Lord’s Recovery such as John Ingalls, leaves me no alternative but to discontinue my contact with you.

Regardless of what new ones you want to introduce to me, there is no way I can have fellowship with you. Your behavior is divisive, and you have not shown any willingness to repent. If you reply that these facts are not true, then I’ll only believe that after you’ve taken down your slanderous web sites and come face to face with Sherman and Joel and the other elders in Seattle and Bellevue and retract the materials you have written.

You told me that you want to be allowed to fellowship with the church in Bellevue, yet your actions tell another story. I have given the Lord and His Recovery thirty seven years of my life, and there is no other life I desire to live. Don’t bother sending me any more emails. I’m just going to delete them anyways. (JM)


JM admitted to never having read my material before writing that email. He did read something before we sovereignly met four months later in Dec 2010 and I confronted him about his email. He offered an apology to me for his rash judgment and said, “I don’t know; I just don’t know”. That is true. Without thorough investigation, no one, including the leaders know.

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.

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. DCP has been quiet also, along with LSM. It seems no one knows what to say, without their conscience troubling them.

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.

www.HidingHistoryintheLordsRecovery.us

www.MakingStraightthewayoftheLord.com

www.TwoTurmoils.com


Steve Isitt
Bellevue, WA
9/17/11

[Ohio]

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.

Dear brother Steve,

There are many precious brothers in the LC's, they are the children of God. JM is also a dear brother, I remember him from Cleveland.

Unfortunately, many LC leaders are not real shepherds. Some, but not all, are even wolves.

They may call themselves "the church," but they are not "the church." It is not "the church" which has closed its door to you. You are not welcome to "meet with the saints" in the LC's because you have exposed their hypocrisy.

When some in Israel began to follow Jesus the Savior, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees got exposed. Then the Pharisees threw the disciples out of the synagogues. The same thing has happened to you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Why don't they open their doors to you? I think the NT says clearly that there is no fellowship between light and dark. Clearly, if you are speaking truth and light, if you are true to your conscience and to the Lord, then be at peace. The Bible says that "as much as is in our power we should be at peace with all men". No one should be compelled to put a muzzle on the truth in order to fellowship with Christians. Remember, the Light overcame the darkness. So reexamine yourself, if you are at peace, then stand strong.

[countmeworthy]

Steve,
You can't change the color of an orange or an apple. They are what they are. It happens in politics, religion and in family disputes...especially when Divorce is the center of discontent.

If you had been raised as a Baptist and loved the Baptist fellowship except for some erronious views you did not agree with and went to the Baptist leadership, you would be treated in much the same way the LC leadership is treating you. Catholics are excommunicated from the RCC. I have seen it happen in non-denomination congregations as well.

I think that is why people go 'church hopping'. They know they can't fix things from the inside.

God is the only One Who changes the heart and attitudes of man. One day soon, He is going to burn away all the wood, hay and stubble.

Peace be with you Steve!

Carol

[zeek]

Indiana-

I was edified by reading your account of the history of the Lord's Recovery in the US. I was active in the Local Churches from 1973 to 1986. Because freedom of speech was suppressed in the churches, I did not have access to the information that would have given me the macro-cosmic perspective you have provided. Your account gives me a larger context in which to understand my experience. Thank you.

[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.

[TLFisher]

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.

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.

[countmeworthy]

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.

And the LORD, the MIGHTY GOD bless you all the more for your efforts Steve ! That may be your calling from God or as the LCrs would say 'your portion in the Body'. In any case, May the Spirit of God be with you and strengthen you giving you Wisdom, Patience, Insight and Understanding throughout your endeavors.

[ZNPaaneah]

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.

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.

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.

[TLFisher]

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.

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.

[ZNPaaneah]

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.

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".

[TLFisher]

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".

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?"

[rayliotta]

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.

Yet a church wide meeting is exactly what happened with Steve Isitt, and in other cases?

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.

Calling someone a "man of death on the Internet" surely does not express "care for the brother", either in reality or in appearance, no?

[ZNPaaneah]

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?

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.

[ZNPaaneah]

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?"

Everyone observing is asking the same question "which one is contending for the faith?" If SI or anyone else can maintain a testimony that he (or she) is the one fighting for the faith, then it is checkmate.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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".

[ZNPaaneah]

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".

I would guess that 90% of the people in attendance didn't have enough information to even participate. This may be why he shared this in S America. Maybe he wanted to make sure there wasn't a discussion or push back during the meeting. Which also is an admission of defeat.

SI should take this as a tip, put his posts into google translate and put them up in Spanish as well as English. Maybe even Chinese as well!

[TLFisher]

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.

Steve, if what is keeping you from fellowship what's between your ears, we would all be kept from fellowship. Gathering together in Jesus name is not based on what's between our ears, but opon a common faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and saviour.
What can't your materials be refuted? Maybe it's because you've done your homework and you've done your research. Other than discrediting your person as a means to offer a rebuttal, there's nothing that can be said. LSM/DCP know that. Their silence is their conviction.

[rayliotta]

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.

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.

[ZNPaaneah]

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.

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.

[TLFisher]

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?

For the record that will be November 11-13 with probably one of the meetings being held in Seattle.

[rayliotta]

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.

Yes, but... I will raise this point again. Doctor my eyes have seen too many who have already "been online", as it were, seen it for themselves, yet what is their response? Take another puff, dig their head deeper in the sand, and go on, go on, go on, go on....

[rayliotta]

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.

To put it another way, for as logical and rational as your theory is, it seems to me not very scientific.