Trudy Metzger/Steve Stutzman

[mike]

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.

Your full post here should be required reading. Very well thought out.

I know of one person with a YouTube channel who portrays herself as an abuse victim advocate, who has conservative Anabaptist background and one of whose goals is to root out and expose the cult-like and abusive aspects of the culture. So a lot of the airtime is spent criticizing conservative Mennonites. There are also regular efforts to grow the audience and expand the reach of the channel, and apparently there is a business aspect to this. But the odd thing that my wife learned about this purported victim of Mennonite culture is that she regularly gets a conservative Mennonite person to babysit her kids so she can work on her YouTube show. It's puzzling.

Another very outspoken person on Facebook right now who is advocating for certain victims of abuse supposedly also regularly has her children cared for by people in the actual culture and types of events that she accuses of abuse and covering up abuse. It certainly doesn't lend credibility to some of the claims that are made.

None of this is helpful for situations where real abuse has occurred. Again, the legal system is not God, but I've seen enough of this of thing over the years that I am relieved to hear when legal authorities become involved. Criminals are not those who are convicted by Facebook.

A person somewhat close to my family is currently being prosecuted for some sort of abuse. It is a situation where there are real questions about the accusers and where the accusations hardly seem credible based on what we know of the person. But we are not God. There is a point where lawyers and prosecutors and investigators have their jobs to do. It may all be true. It would benefit absolutely nothing for this case to be litigated on social media, which it is not. Not yet anyway. But it is proceeding to trial and we will wait for the results.

[Judas Maccabeus]

It appears that this has been properly reported.

So why can’t the “advocates “ simply back off and let the proper authorities do their work?

But that doesn’t get clicks or book sales.

[Bootstrap]

It appears that this has been properly reported.

So why can’t the “advocates “ simply back off and let the proper authorities do their work?

But that doesn’t get clicks or book sales.

I agree.

We simply don't have enough information to be able to discuss this intelligently here, but you don't need information to pour gas on a fire. The people who do have enough information to speak to this aren't hanging out on the Internet offering opinions.

This involves real people's lives. The Bible's warnings against gossip seem relevant.

[R7ehr]

It appears that this has been properly reported.

So why can’t the “advocates “ simply back off and let the proper authorities do their work?

But that doesn’t get clicks or book sales.

I can't imagine book sales and clicks are lucrative enough to produce this level of motivation. My guess is that the driving motivation is not financial. I guess a little might be fame/attention.
But I think the actual driving motivation is either a desire to see the Mennonite and Amish churches change in the way the view and handle accusations and abuse. And/or a desire to destroy a church and culture that they have rejected and they deem irredeemable, and must be burned down.

What the motivation or combination of motives, are for one "advocate" is unlikely to completely match the motives of the next "advocate". And the methods they use may be quite similar, even though they are coming from different primary motivations. And to further muddy the analysis, even the most purely motivated "advocate" may ignorantly employ stunningly ineffective methods.

[temporal1]

1) We simply don't have enough information to be able to discuss this intelligently here, but you don't need information to pour gas on a fire. The people who do have enough information to speak to this aren't hanging out on the Internet offering opinions.

2) This involves real people's lives. The Bible's warnings against gossip seem relevant.

^^ 1) i believe you (and i) do not have information. i won’t presume that’s true for all.
2) i won’t accuse others here of gossip.

It appears that this has been properly reported.
So why can’t the “advocates “ simply back off and let the proper authorities do their work?
But that doesn’t get clicks or book sales.

I can't imagine book sales and clicks are lucrative enough to produce this level of motivation. My guess is that the driving motivation is not financial. I guess a little might be fame/attention.

But I think the actual driving motivation is either a desire to see the Mennonite and Amish churches change in the way the view and handle accusations and abuse. And/or a desire to destroy a church and culture that they have rejected and they deem irredeemable, and must be burned down.

What the motivation or combination of motives, are for one "advocate" is unlikely to completely match the motives of the next "advocate". And the methods they use may be quite similar, even though they are coming from different primary motivations. And to further muddy the analysis, even the most purely motivated "advocate" may ignorantly employ stunningly ineffective methods.

i’m not sure why destruction seems so much more tempting than building up. but, ‘boy, is it popular!

having said that, the big lesson (for me) was the 1990’s internet phenom when victims of priest abuse found each other and their voice to at last identify abuse and gain significant recognition as never before in history.

part of what i learned was how SIMILAR and how ROUTINE and how EFFECTIVE abusers were in maintaining power over victims -
starting with character assassination of the victims. and their enablers.

the patterns are so similar, no matter scale, whether individual or group, or location.
the internet provided the means. not instantly! not without ALL the established techniques used to try to stop them.

so. complaints require investigation.

there will be exaggerations+hoaxes, bad intentions. vengeful hearts.

there is no 1-size-fits-all answer.

God have mercy on us all.

[ken_sylvania]

It appears that this has been properly reported.

So why can’t the “advocates “ simply back off and let the proper authorities do their work?

But that doesn’t get clicks or book sales.

There are times when the legal system doesn't commit the resources that would be needed to investigate an allegation unless there is public interest in the case.

Then there are cases like the Leroy Miller who was mentioned earlier who was investigated, found guilty and punished by the legal system. Then apparently moved to a different state and became a pastor while (allegedly) hiding, minimizing and/or denying his previous conduct. Do the people who are funding his "ministry" and those being "ministered to" by him deserve to know about his past? Or is it all covered by the blood? Does his suitability for ministry depend on whether he is honest and forthcoming about his past? In this case, apparently Trudy thinks it ought to be exposed and SS thinks there's nothing to see here. If indeed all was taken care of previously, why did Miller need to resign and why did the church need to take down his bio page from their website? A mob response is hardly a great way to adjudicate such a situation. But if there hadn't been a great hue and cry, would the church board have done anything about the situation? So many questions, and so few answers.

[barnhart]

I think there is a both/and situation with some of these activists advocates. It's possible they are sometimes motivated by past hurts and strike out more aggressively than they should and yet they still can play a valuable role. If they are abusing the power of populist opposition, it is often in response to abuse of church power. I would recommend cautious, listening discernment rather than throwing them under the bus.

[Neto]

I think there is a both/and situation with some of these activists advocates. It's possible they are sometimes motivated by past hurts and strike out more aggressively than they should and yet they still can play a valuable role. If they are abusing the power of populist opposition, it is often in response to abuse of church power. I would recommend cautious, listening discernment rather than throwing them under the bus.

I agree, but wonder if that role is spiritually and emotionally beneficial to them, themselves. I cannot answer, because I have never experienced anything remotely like that. So I'm trying to think of something I HAVE experienced, then asking myself if becoming an 'advocate' for others who have gone through the same thing would cause more harm than good to my own spiritual condition, and would I be effective (and fair to possible perpetrators) in that type of ministry. Within the actions of the Church, repentance and restoration should be the objective, not punishment.

[cooper]

There are two separate cases that involve Steve Stutzman that Trudy has given visibility two. One is a case that has been or is being investigated by CPS. The other is Leroy Miller, the lead pastor at the church where Steve Stutzman is an overseer. Leroy Miller spent time in prison 20 years ago for a sex-related crime, has minimized this, had power over young people allegedly holding young girls in his lap, "casting out demons" of sex abuse victims that was traumatizing. I could go on. Trudy published information from the court system that laid out the facts in such a way that Leroy resigned as lead pastor. When people knew the facts, his pastoral ministry was no longer sustainable. Men like Leroy Miller are disqualified from ministry, and it should not even be a question. I wish it were not necessary for Trudy to obtain this information and publicize it for Leroy to resign. I wish there were another way, yet here we are.

[barnhart]

.... Men like ***** ******* are disqualified from ministry, and it should not even be a question...

I don't want to comment on specific cases but I agree with the principle. Why is this even a question. I think a one strike policy for sexual abuse and church leadership is a good policy. There are other ways these men case serve that does not put them around vulnerable people. Maybe they can operate a forklift in a warehouse.