I think your topic is important.
Was Trudy abused herself?
Yes, by her own father. She is from my own ethnic background (Plautdietsch), but grew up in the Old Colony setting is several different communities in Mexico. (Her father reportedly moved to a different colony whenever others of the community began to suspect him of abusing his children.)
Her book is titled Between 2 Gods: Memoir of Abuse in the Mennonite Community.
(There were two couples and a single lady on our Rhine River cruise in May, all from Old Colony background. I visited a good bit with one of the men, and he told me about the spiritual oppression his father and family experienced, and specifically himself as well. For instance, forbidding the reading and study of Scripture.)
I reached out to trusted friends who are closer to this case. It sounds messy and explosive.
1) It sounds like this is more than "he said/she said.” There is documented evidence and CPS is involved.
2) Regardless of whether you agree with Trudy's tone and tactics, it has no bearing on whether any of this is true. In my experience, it often doesn't matter what tone advocates adopt, it's frequently derided or ignored.
3) I also encourage extreme caution while discussing this case. Some participants on this forum personally know Steve and Trudy. Since this is a legal issue, there may be liability that the moderators may need to take into consideration. Leave the Facebook vitriol on Facebook.
1 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
Szdfan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 9:47 am
I reached out to trusted friends who are closer to this case. It sounds messy and explosive.
1) It sounds like this is more than "he said/she said.” There is documented evidence and CPS is involved.
From SS.
"Micheal received documentation from CYS stating that the 2 accusations against him were considered “unfounded”. This does NOT mean nothing ever happened, it is a classification used by CYS in their internal investigations. (You can search ,founded, Indicated, unfounded CYS PA’ for more information) This is all done by professionals, whose job and career it is to understand these things and make judgement calls. (It is highly unethical, and in some cases criminal, to share these documents online. Do not ask for them."
2) Regardless of whether you agree with Trudy's tone and tactics, it has no bearing on whether any of this is true. In my experience, it often doesn't matter what tone advocates adopt, it's frequently derided or ignored.
From what I have seen, that isn't the case. She has many supporters who definitely aren't ignoring her. Her information about Leroy Miller was not ignored, or he wouldn't have resigned from the ministry at Bethesda Christian Fellowship.
3) I also encourage extreme caution while discussing this case. Some participants on this forum personally know Steve and Trudy. Since this is a legal issue, there may be liability that the moderators may need to take into consideration. Leave the Facebook vitriol on Facebook.
I agree that the vitriol needs to stay on Facebook. I would hope the hateful vitriol posted by Trudy's followers stays off Mennonet. The vitriol is a huge detriment to the cause of preventing child sexual abuse. Yet it seems like Trudy condones it.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 9:47 am
I reached out to trusted friends who are closer to this case. It sounds messy and explosive.
1) It sounds like this is more than "he said/she said.” There is documented evidence and CPS is involved.
From SS.
"Micheal received documentation from CYS stating that the 2 accusations against him were considered “unfounded”. This does NOT mean nothing ever happened, it is a classification used by CYS in their internal investigations. (You can search ,founded, Indicated, unfounded CYS PA’ for more information) This is all done by professionals, whose job and career it is to understand these things and make judgement calls. (It is highly unethical, and in some cases criminal, to share these documents online. Do not ask for them."
2) Regardless of whether you agree with Trudy's tone and tactics, it has no bearing on whether any of this is true. In my experience, it often doesn't matter what tone advocates adopt, it's frequently derided or ignored.
From what I have seen, that isn't the case. She has many supporters who definitely aren't ignoring her. Her information about Leroy Miller was not ignored, or he wouldn't have resigned from the ministry at Bethesda Christian Fellowship.
3) I also encourage extreme caution while discussing this case. Some participants on this forum personally know Steve and Trudy. Since this is a legal issue, there may be liability that the moderators may need to take into consideration. Leave the Facebook vitriol on Facebook.
I agree that the vitriol needs to stay on Facebook. I would hope the hateful vitriol posted by Trudy's followers stays off Mennonet. The vitriol is a huge detriment to the cause of preventing child sexual abuse. Yet it seems like Trudy condones it.
My own sources said that CPS found the allegations credible. I’m not going to speculate, because now we are entering “he said/she said” territory regarding second-handed accounts of documents neither of us have actually seen.
Again, I don’t see the value in spreading Facebook vitriol here about people some on the forum actually know.
0 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
Szdfan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 10:23 am
My own sources said that CPS found the allegations credible. I’m not going to speculate, because now we are entering “he said/she said” territory regarding second-handed accounts of documents neither of us have actually seen.
Again, I don’t see the value in spreading Facebook vitriol here about people some on the forum actually know.
There is a difference between posting facts versus vitriol.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 10:23 am
My own sources said that CPS found the allegations credible. I’m not going to speculate, because now we are entering “he said/she said” territory regarding second-handed accounts of documents neither of us have actually seen.
Again, I don’t see the value in spreading Facebook vitriol here about people some on the forum actually know.
There is a difference between posting facts versus vitriol.
I’m hearing a very different story.
None of us in this conversation on this forum have facts. None of this is public record. None of this has been reported in the press. None of us have seen the CYS report.
All of this is speculation based on second-hand reports.
And the stakes are higher because it involves people who aren’t strangers. This is a very public fight on Facebook between people who have relationships with participants on MennoNet.
0 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
Szdfan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 10:23 am
My own sources said that CPS found the allegations credible. I’m not going to speculate, because now we are entering “he said/she said” territory regarding second-handed accounts of documents neither of us have actually seen.
Again, I don’t see the value in spreading Facebook vitriol here about people some on the forum actually know.
There is a difference between posting facts versus vitriol.
I’m hearing a very different story.
None of us in this conversation on this forum have facts. None of this is public record. None of this has been reported in the press. None of us have seen the CYS report.
All of this is speculation based on second-hand reports.
And the stakes are higher because it involves people who aren’t strangers. This is a very public fight on Facebook between people who have relationships with participants on MennoNet.
I was referring to posting vitriol versus facts about what Trudy and her supporters are posting on Facebook.
As for the alleged cases she is posting about, you are right, all of it is speculation based on secondhand reports.
This must be on Facebook (which I don't use anymore)?
I've been keeping up with stories like these across different contexts for several years since the topic of abuse crossed my own path. Over the years I've come to see, through my observations and experience, that anyone describing themselves publicly as an "abuse victim advocate" or some such is a red flag. This isn't complete but I'll sketch out a few of the people and events that led me there:
The Dramatist: Once at a church conference (nothing to do with me except as an onlooker) in which advocates had a favored candidate for a post who was up against a Disfavored candidate some drama broke out. One of the advocates, herself a victim, accused the Disfavored of accosting her publicly and rudely saying unchristian things to her. (I happened to be on Twitter at the time of the Incident. I doubt it is remembered otherwise.) Though at the time I would have been sympathetic, the story rang so obviously false to me. It was too neat and convenient; the villain of the story behaved like a character in a drama and not at all in a way the sort of man who stands for church office would act in public (no matter what his true character was). But no one else seemed to sense this. The Disfavored denied the story, of course but his character was disparaged and so it was. Several years later there was a series of blog posts in which several advocates lamented the fact that, through unrelated incidents years later, they had discovered what had been apparent to me: that the Dramatist was a manipulative pathological liar.
The Mob: I once read a statement from a church leader whose name I don't remember. He had made a benign statement after another church leader was caught in some abuse expressing his sadness, disappointment, and confidence that everything would be found and brought to light. In the comments he responded to a question and his answer did not align with abuse victim advocate Doctrine on some minor point. Something about the committee, a hotline? I don't remember what exactly but it was a minor question of procedure and nothing he said suggested he had any doubts about the allegations or their seriousness. Nonetheless this had drawn the attention of at least one abuse advocate and for this heresy a mob had descended on him and the comments were full of insinuations and open accusations that the reason for his deviation from Doctrine was that he was, of course, trying to cover up his own horrific crimes. It was at this point I distinctly remember my disgust as I realized that the "abuse advocate" tree was poisoned to the root and I wanted nothing to do with them.
Moving from the outside to the inside, but also the first chronologically:
The Slanderer: There was a certain man who, at one point, at least, styled himself as an abuse advocate or some such (you may well have read a quote or something by him to that effect). He often semi-privately insinuated to those of us present that he had discovered various people were involved in various inappropriate things, usually sexual. At one point, privately to me, he falsely accused someone else of sexual abuse against a small child. I later discovered the animus behind his choice of target (at the time I didn't know his character and had concluded he had overzealously let his imagination run away with him). I also since gathered here and there that this was a common modus operandi he used against his enemies. I don't need to lay out all his faults here or build a phychological profile of him but I would also note that he liked to make himself the hero at the center of attention. I never knew him to be interested in the topic of abuse before it became the topic du jour. But it is a powerful weapon in the hands of those not well acquainted with the truth and alongside it he found it also brought him the heroic attention he so craved, standing up for "victims".
The Source: Several months ago I posted a news article regarding an abuse case. Several other followup articles were posted in the replies including one quoting a victim advocate who has also been occasionally quoted elsewhere on the same events. I have met this person and, while I do not know him well, I have some sense of him. Like the Slanderer, he enjoys being the hero at center of attention. I do not know his exact relationship with the truth except that they are not on the best of terms. He often publicly (on Facebook, etc.) insinuated apparently false things about the topic he was being quoted on. (I don't recall any of these things said in the article—and a good journalist would not have included anything said in the vague way he has of saying these things—but quite honestly my eyes rolled into my head when I saw his name and I may have missed it.)
On this particular topic he found a path to the attention he craved—if only he could find a way to insert himself and make himself a part of the story. And so he did with little stretches of the truth and inferences here and there to make it seem as if a certain boy he was connected to had been one of the victims of real abuse. He often implied this without stating it outright and used this connection for moral standing to comment on the topic. (Later I believe he got himself some real connections.) (I'm sure the curious reader can easily search my posts and infer who it is but I don't think his identity is necessarily relevant to this post as I'm just trying to draw sketches.)
So what then? On the one end of the spectrum, it's obvious part of the attraction of reading these blogs is just salacious gossip for which the moral outrage is sometimes just a thin veneer. On the other end of the spectrum are the unscrupulous who find the attention and power attractive and will happily provide the supply and cash in, sometimes to very damaging effect. In the middle are those happy to hear and print juicy rumors for their audiences often without being too careful to nail down the facts. (Including Trudy although, to her credit she seems to have deleted the one I had in mind from her site when I went looking just now—although I think she should have issued a retraction instead of just memory holing it.) I don't mean to imply the participants are purely parasitic (well, not most of them) and I think they do feel moral outrage. But I think there are also motivations behind what gets printed and said which they don't fully understand themselves and that leaves the whole whole genre open and ripe for manipulation and...uh, well, abuse.
I wouldn't say that there is never a place to say something publicly but as my experience has grown I've become increasingly skeptical that there's ever a place to publish it on a blog like these.
The Silent: I can't (or won't) draw much detail for the last sketch so I will just say that there are a number of people who have done a lot of work rooting out these things and bring them to light without drawing attention to themselves. You have never (or rarely) read their names in a blog post (though sometimes bloggers get credit for their work) but they have paid a very heavy price for hunting down the truth and following it where it led them. A real price—long relationships broken, ugly things said about them behind their backs. Beware of those "paying the price for speaking out"—to the delight and adoration of the following they've cultivated.
Even with all its flaws, I trust the legal system more than I trust either Trudy Metzger or Steve Stutzman to sort out the real facts of abuse cases, and exponentially more than I trust social media pot-stirrers, advocates, and influencers.
mike wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:24 pm
Even with all its flaws, I trust the legal system more than I trust either Trudy Metzger or Steve Stutzman to sort out the real facts of abuse cases, and exponentially more than I trust social media pot-stirrers, advocates, and influencers.
Add to that they have a duty outlined in the New testament to carry out this work.
