Of course not, but Metzger’s information is well-researched, well-sourced, and she has brought it to the appropriate parties in private. The burden of proof is to disprove what she is saying.mike wrote:What I understood Ernie to say is that some of what was said is true and there were some inaccuracies. I believe this is very possible. Trudy Metzger's blog posts, and folks' posts and comments on social media, are not the inspired word of God. We have snippets of information but none of us, her included, knows all the information. I am not going to place my full and complete trust in any person's perspective and knowledge.
For reference, she is part of a large, respected Anabaptist church, under the pastoral leadership of Bruxy Cavey. She is also in a Ph.D programme at a respected Canadian university and already has earned a Master’s.
If someone thinks she is lying or engaging in misconduct, I strongly recommend pursuing that via either church or academic channels. If she behaves in unethical conduct, there will be very serious consequences for her, and many eyes are on her.
There’s a preponderance of evidence some people are not acting in good faith. How do we proceed?I think we should focus on what is not in dispute, and not quibble over details. I don't believe that either Trudy or CAM is intentionally lying. All parties in this situation are deeply hurting and are in difficult straits, and are trying to navigate the situation as best they can, some working with victims, some with the perpetrator and his family, and some with the severe effects this has for CAM. I will accept that all parties are at least trying to proceed in good faith unless there is evidence otherwise.
The real problem is people in authority who accomodated Jeriah Mast and then orchestrated hush money. They they ignored people who brought this to their attention (like yours truly).The real problem in this situation is Jeriah Mast and he must bear the primary responsibility. Don't forget that.
Don’t forget that, either.
Are you saying Metzger has wrong motives? What do you think her motives are?There are people who want to see CAM or Trudy or other involved parties discredited. Motives like that are a distraction.
Situations like this bring out all the instant experts, armchair quarterbacks, and folks who want to destroy or hurt people, groups of people, or organizations for other reasons. Scandals are red meat for people with a prior agenda. I read Trudy's writing with an open mind and respect her work but I assume she does not know everything or interpret everything correctly, just like any other human.
More importantly, why did nobody speak out except her?
Speaking as a seeker who came into a Mennonite church, I find this inaccurate. Plain people gossip about all kinds of sordid details. They just don’t like outsiders learning about them and prefer a veneer of “respectability”.I understand Ernie to be expressing his opinion that the "details of darkness" should not be publicized. That is a valid opinion and worthy of discussion. If you feel otherwise I think you should explain your view.Josh wrote:There is a “united effort” to prevent things like this from being seen in the light of day. We can see it in our culture in responses like Ernie’s, where he complains that Trudy Metzger was wrong to make the blog post public, and also makes a baseless allegation she lied in her blog post.
Someone who is serially molesting children doesn’t deserve privacy. Metzger would have been glad to keep details more private. Without details, she gets accused of being inaccurate or a liar.
He needs to bring evidence of his claims, or else say nothing at all.Also, you say his claim of inaccuracies is baseless, but you also are not God, and don't know everything. In accusing Ernie of baseless allegations you are doing the very same thing. Be careful about what you're saying.
He could make and publish his own statement. And remember, Mike, this isn’t my first run-in with this.